Doeden v. Stubstad

1:30pm Monday, May 5, 2008
20070322 Karen Doeden d/b/a High Impact Sign
Company, a/k/a A High Impact Sign, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Curtis Stubstad, Defendant and Appellee
Appeal from: East Central Judicial District, Cass County, Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
Nature of Action: Contracts
Counsel:

Appellant: Garaas Law Firm
Appellee: Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck & Selbo, Ltd.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1.Did the Trial Court fail to honor the vested property rights of the owner of gifted property?
2.Did the Trial Court err in concluding that Doeden did not have an ownership interest in the gifted property?
3.In a claim and delivery action alleging conversion, does the converter have the legal right to assert lack of ownership of the property converted after participating in the forcible entry of the property owner's warehouse site, followed by the removal and secreting of the subject personal property owned by another?
4. At the implied request of a converter that is not a party to the contract, does the Trial Court have jurisdiction to alter the terms of an unqualified transfer of ownership in a business when (a) the contract evidencing prior ownership is not the subject of the action, (b) the Trial Court has no jurisdiction over one of the parties to said contract, and (c) the conversion action did not involve interpreting said contract?
5.Did the Trial Court err by allowing the converter to assert ownership in a third party when the newly-identified third party (a) denies such gift took place, and (b) provided testimony that the converted property was actually owned by Plaintiff/Appellant Doeden?
6.Did the Trial Court err in not awarding Doeden damages for conversion, including attorney fees for frivolous pleadings/presentation?
7.Can a District Court Judge take away a statutory right to interest from the date of conversion?
reply Brief Issues
It is rare for three (3) consecutive sentences to epitomize flaw, yet the error of Appellee Stubstad's position is displayed by (i) his description of the issue() and (ii) his initial view of the case [Brief of Appellee Curtis Stubstad {"Stubstad Brief"}, s 1 & 2]:
"1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding for defendant curtis stubstad on plaintiff Karen Doeden's claims."
2. Defendant/Appellee Curtis Stubstad purchased mobile signs, and letters used on the signs, from Stanley Knecht. Plaintiff/Appellant Karen Doeden claims that Knecht gave the signs, free of charge, to her before Knecht sold the signs/letters to Stubstad."
When Appellee Stubstad indicates the sole issue revolves around the exercise of a District Court's "discretion" [ 1, above], he voices a flawed perception of the basic purpose of a trial, which has been described by the United States Supreme Court as being "the determination of truth .." Tehan v. United States, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966). The District Court Judge does not exercise any discretion, but rather, decides the facts [becomes the actual fact finder] in a bench trial. Indeed, N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) mandates such role for the judge.
Stubstad's second and third sentence [ 2, above] pronounce an impossible sequence of events rendering his position(s) untenable. Stubstad's initial identified order of events in these appellate proceedings is even different than his original trial presentation, and incredibly, another version appears in his subsequent appellate presentation which implicitly recognizes Stubstad's conversion of Doeden's property.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding for defendant Curtis Stubstad on plaintiff Karen Doeden's claims.
Briefs:
Case Summary
Appellant Brief
Appellee Brief
Reply Brief
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Go to Docket

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/30/2008