Flattum-Riemers v. Peters-Riemers

20000349 Roland C. Flattum-Riemers, Petitioner, Appellant
and Cross-Appellee
v.
Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Respondent, Appellee
and Cross-Appellant
Appeal from: District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Lawrence E. Jahnke
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Gjesdahl Law, P.C.
Term: 04/2001   Argument: 04/03/2001  04:00pm
ND cite: 2001 ND 121
NW cite: 630 N.W.2d 71

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court abuse it's discretion and violated the Rules of Procedure and Petitioner's Due Process rights by allowing the submission of Respondents Pleadings less then 24 hours before the hearing?
II. Did the trial court error and deny Petitioner his Due Process rights by not allowing the Petitioner to obtain witnesses to rebut Respondent's tardy Pleadings and testimony?
III. Did the trial court error by not making specific findings of fact on domestic abuse.?
IV. Did the trial court error in its view of the law, believing that domestic abuse had to be recent in order to be considered for a protection order and effectively excluded evidence of Respondent's threats with guns and knifes before14th of March 2000?
V. Did the trial court error by ruling that Petitioner's failure to previously stop living with Respondent and his willingness to meet with Respondent for child visitations demonstrated he had no real fear of her?
VI. Did the trail court error in not ruling on Petitioner's motion to hold Respondent in contempt for lying in court?
VII. Did the trial court error and abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner a Protection Order?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. The Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion by Allowing Jenese to File her Responsive Affidavit Less Than 24 Hours Prior to the Hearing
B. The Trial Court did not err and Deny Roland Due Process by not Allowing him a Continuance to Rebut Jenese's Affidavit and Testimony
C. The Trial Court did not err in Failing to Make Specific Findings of Fact on Domestic Abuse
D. The Trial Court did not err in not Ruling on Roland's Impromptu Contempt Motion
E.The Trial Court did not err in Denying Roland's Protection Order

Add Docket 20000349 RSS Add Docket 20000349 RSS
Docket entries:
112/15/2000 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/13/2000
212/26/2000 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL
312/21/2000 Letter from Roland Riemers dated 12-18-00 asking if a filing fee is required as appeal is a denial
412/21/2000 of a protection order under N.D.C.C. 14-07.1
501/09/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL
601/09/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED September 19, 2000
701/10/2001 DISK - TRA (9-19-00)
802/12/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF
902/12/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1002/13/2001 DISK - atb
1103/09/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF
1203/09/2001 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1303/12/2001 DISK - AEB
1403/27/2001 Request for waiver of oral argument (faxed letter from Michael L. Gjesdahl dated 3-27-01 & copy of
1503/27/2001 e-mail message to Mr. Gjesdahl from Mr. Riemers dated 3-23-01 & Mr. Riemers' E-mail response)
1603/27/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Waiver of oral argument - AT/AE). Granted
1703/28/2001 Original of Request for Waiver of oral argument dated 3-27-01 w/cover letter
1804/03/2001 APPEARANCES: submitted on brief
1904/03/2001 ARGUED: submitted on brief (Vol. X; page 123)
2007/10/2001 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2107/10/2001 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2207/10/2001 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
2307/11/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2407/16/2001 Notice of Entry of Judgment & Cert. of Service (judgment mailed to Roland Riemers 7/13/2001)
2508/03/2001 MANDATE
2608/10/2007 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2707/16/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/19/2013