|1:30 pm||Tuesday, February 13, 2018|
CHS Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee
Roland Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
|Appeal from:||Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County, Judge John A. Thelen, 18-2015-CV-01950|
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it awarded CHS, Inc., post- judgment attorney fees in order to sanction Roland Riemers for bringing his post-judgment motion that questioned whether the monetary judgment against him may have been paid in full [or even overpaid] through CHS, Inc.'s garnishment efforts?
2. Was Roland Riemers' March 17, 2017, post-judgment motion supported by the Grand Forks Clerk of District Court's own records, un-controverted factual exhibits, and North Dakota law, and therefore not frivolous, nor sanctionable?
3. Was Roland Riemers' March 17, 2017, post-judgment motion a "claim for relief" within the meaning of N.D.C.C. 28-26-01(2)?
4. Is there any statutory basis to award untaxed costs, incurred in an unfiled garnishment action, against a judgment debtor?
5. May a judgment debtor rely upon a Clerk of Court's application - as set forth in the Clerk's public records - of a judgment creditor's acknowledged receipt of funds [as actually expressed in two (2) Partial Satisfaction(s) of Judgment] duly applied to the judgment's principal [and the $10.00 execution fee]?
6. Are a judgment creditor's garnishment costs, and also, accruing post-judgment interest, waived when the judgment creditor returns an execution to the District Clerk of Court without mentioning either item, yet providing for a partial satisfaction to all monies it received by a garnishment execution?
7. Are a judgment creditor's garnishment costs cumulative so that a judgment creditor can add, or tack, the costs of a failed garnishment proceeding to a successful garnishment proceeding?
8. Does judgment interest accrue upon post-judgment costs?
9. Can pre-judgment and/or post-judgment interest accrue after May 3, 2016, when Riemers, a judgment debtor taking advantage of N.D.C.C. 9-12-25 by that date: (1) had transferred $41,100.00 into a bank account so that his creditor could fully accomplish an existing garnishment; (2) informed his judgment creditor of such transfer; and (3) informed his bank to not resist the garnishment?
10. Under the provisions of N.D.C.C. 41-03-36, did Alerus Financial's ["Alerus"] June 2, 2016, check of $39,644.58, issued to 1. CHS, Inc.'s attorneys, discharge Riemers' judgment obligation in that amount, and the accrual of post-judgment interest upon that amount, as of June 7, 2017 - the date of CHS, Inc.'s acceptance of the check, even though two (2) weeks later CHS, Inc., returned $1,842.61 of the cashed check proceeds to Riemers' account in Alerus?
11. Was Roland Riemers correct that CHS, Inc., was garnishing amounts that were in excess of what he owed on the judgment in February and March of 2017?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding CHS its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to Riemers' Motion to Reopen Case to Close Judgment.
2. The District Court did not err in declining to find the Judgment and Amended Judgment against Riemers as satisfied in full.
3. The District Court did not err in finding that CHS followed all applicable law and statutes relating to the garnishment remedy.
4. The District Court did not err in allowing CHS taxation of its post-judgment costs.
5. The District Court did not err in finding that CHS was not improperly compounding interest.
Appellant Brief 1
Appellee Brief 1
Reply Brief 1
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/28/2018