Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Kurt Datz appealed a divorce judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children to Helen Dosch, distributing the marital estate after finding economic and non-economic fault by Datz and ordering Datz to pay child support and one-half of the cost of hiring a nanny for the children. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed on primary residential responsibility, affirmed the remainder of the judgment and remanded. Except for the brief reference to the domestic violence factor, the district court never identified any of the best interest factors in its findings. Rather, the court's findings appear to be a summarization of evidence supporting Dosch's position. At the end of the summarization, with no discussion of individual factors or explanation of which factors favored which party, the trial court concluded that "[t]he court has considered N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2" and "[t]he factors have been addressed." View "Datz v. Dosch" on Justia Law

Roy Jensen appeals a district court order denying his motion to amend a divorce judgment to modify primary residential responsibility for the parties' child. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding Jensen established a prima facie case for modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. View "Jensen v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Deborah Schiff appealed a district court judgment denying her spousal support. The district court noted the parties agreed to an equal split of the marital estate but disputed some values and which party should receive particular assets. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision was based on sufficient evidence and was not clearly erroneous. View "Schiff v. Schiff" on Justia Law

Helen Rebel appealed her judgment of divorce from Rodney Rebel, primary residential responsibility and child support for their then-minor child, and distributing their marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the child support award, but reversed the property distribution. The Court found the district court did not adequately articulate reasons justifying its calculations. Furthermore, the value of the property received by Helen Rebel was less than the value articulated by the district court. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court was unable to determine that the resulting property distribution was equitable. View "Rebel v. Rebel" on Justia Law

Micah Green appealed a fourth amended judgment and an order denying her post-judgment motions to amend the trial court's findings, to make additional findings, for a new trial, and for a stay of the judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor children to the father, Christopher Morrissey; that the court did not misapply the law in admitting certain evidence; and that the court did not clearly err in its award of parenting time to Green. View "Interest of N.C.M., D.C.M., and J.J.M." on Justia Law

Caryn Sall (Weber) appealed a district court order that denied her motion for relief from a fourth amended divorce judgment and a district court order on remand from her 2011 appeal to the Supreme Court. Concluding its judgment on remand was complied with and the district court correctly denied attempts to redetermine previously resolved issues, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sall v. Sall" on Justia Law

Leslie Miller appealed an order that denied his motion to change primary residential responsibility for his son without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in ruling Miller failed to establish a prima facie case justifying the change. View "Miller v. Miller" on Justia Law

Erin (Muxlow) Kartes appealed an amended divorce judgment awarding Jorey Kartes primary residential responsibility for the parties' two children. Finding that a party cannot challenge a district court's conclusion that a prima facie case has been established warranting an evidentiary hearing on a change of primary residential responsibility on appeal, that the district court's findings that Muxlow's actions were a persistent and willful denial or interference with Kartes's parenting time, and that the best interests of the children required a change of primary residential responsibility to Kartes were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kartes v. Kartes" on Justia Law

Gardell Frey appealed a district court order that denied his motion to modify primary residential responsibility for his children. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding a material change occurred as a matter of law. The Court remanded the case back to the district court to find whether modification was necessary to serve the best interests of the children under the relevant statutory factors. View "Frey v. Frey" on Justia Law

Jason Bachmeier and Natasha Bachmeier (now Natasha Stevens), were divorced with a judgment entered by stipulation in 2010. They have three children together from the marriage. Stevens' attorney for the divorce prepared a parenting plan to be included in the divorce judgment. The plan was signed by both parties, and was filed with the court. The plan stated that the "legal residence of the children for school attendance shall be with [Natasha Stevens]." It also stated "Education Decisions will be made by: Mother." At the time of the divorce, the parties lived together in the marital home in Granville. All three children attended Granville school. After the divorce, Stevens moved to Glenburn, where she was employed as a teacher. Bachmeier asked the district court to enter an ex parte order preventing Stevens from enrolling the children in Glenburn schools. The district court refused to do so. After the move to Glenburn, problems arose with transportation to and from school. The parents began different living arrangements, with two children attending Glenburn schools and one attending Granville schools. Stevens filed a motion to amend the judgment and award her primary residential responsibility. She claimed the school arrangements were not working out and Bachmeier was trying to turn the children against her. Bachmeier responded with a motion to hold Stevens in contempt for changing the school the children attended and for frustrating his parenting time. The district court denied Stevens' motion, but did not rule on Bachmeier's contempt motion. He renewed his motion, and a hearing was held. The district court denied the motion for contempt, ruling that the parenting plan applied, that Stevens had the authority to change the school the children attended, and that Stevens had not willfully disobeyed a court order when they had to make transportation and parenting time adjustments because of the change of schools. Bachmeier appealed the district court's order denying his motion to find Stevens in contempt. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under the wording of the parenting plan, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold Stevens in contempt. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold Stevens in contempt for disrupting Bachmeier's parenting time. View "Bachmeier v. Bachmeier" on Justia Law