Peters-Riemers v. Riemers
Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellee
Roland C. Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Lawrence A. Leclerc
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||12/2001  Argument: 12/13/2001|
|ND cite:||2002 ND 72|
644 N.W.2d 197
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Is there a State Constitutional right to jury trial in a divorce action in North Dakota, and did the Court error in denying this right or ruling on this timely demand?
II. Is N.D.C.C.14.05-22(3) and N.D.C.C. 14.09-06.2(1)(j) unconstitutional because their domestic violence presumptions on custody and visitation shift the burden of proof to the parent and also deny due process and family rights under the State and Federal Constitution as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
III. Was Defendant denied his due process rights and ability to put on a defense when Judge Leclerc moved the trial from Traill County to Cass county?
IV. Was Johnathan denied his due process rights when the court failed to provide him a GAL or to allow him to testify in his own behalf?
V. Was Judge Leclerc bias towards the Defendant or was he just unable to perform his judicial duties in a competent manner?
VI. Did the Court clearly error, abuse discretion, and ignored the law, by making an "opinion" instead of specific findings of facts on domestic violence?
VII. Did the Court clearly error and abuse discretion when it found one slap or butt boot were domestic violence by Roland, but Jenese's use of knifes and guns against Roland were just "self defense"?
VIII. Did the Court clearly error and abuse its discretion in allowing Jenese to testify on her religion to booster her claim to custody?
IX. Did the Court clearly error and abuse discretion by finding Roland had had extra-relational affairs and committed adultery during the course of the marriage?
X. Did the Court clearly error in finding "extreme cruelty" without a finding of facts to support this finding?
XI. Did the District Court clearly error in fact and law, and violated Roland's state Constitutional right to contract by ruling the premarital agreement was unconscionable at time of signing &/or due to Roland's later litigations?
XII. Did the Court error in law by not dividing marital and premarital property as required by Article 11, Section 23 of the North Dakota Constitution?
XIII. Did the Court error in law in not granting, or even responding to Roland's request for an In Camera settlement conference (Appendix H)?
XIV. Did the Court clearly error and abuse discretion by awarding custody and supervised visitation on one set of facts, and then changing this fact finding months later?
XV. Did the Court clearly error in facts (& math) by blindly accepting all of Jenese's financial figures (without testimony) and none of Roland's (with testimony) or in refusing to included various documented debts into the property listing?
XVI. Did the Court clearly error and abuse its discretion and ignored the Ruff-Fischer Guidelines in awarding Jenese $500 a month in spousal support?
XVII. Did the Court abuse its discretion and without lawful authority, order Roland, at the age of 58, to maintain a life insurance policy until Johnathan reached 18 years of age and Roland would be 72?
XVIII. Did the Court abuse its discretion and the law by requiring Roland to carry health insurance on Johnathan without it being available to Roland at Reasonable costs?
XIX. Did the Court abuse its discretion by allowing Jenese to haul away ALL the homestead property and then claim it as her own in Grafton by right of possession?
XX. Did the Court clearly error and abuse its discretion by ordering Roland to pay 100% of his and Jenese's divorce attorney fees?
XXI. Did the Court clearly error and abuse discretion by finding that evidence of a misdemeanor plea bargain for assault, was also an admission to domestic abuse?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. (Roland's I) Is there a State Constitutional right to jury trial in a divorce action?
B. (Roland's II) Do NDCC 14-05-22(3) AND 14-09-6.2(1)(j) impermissibly shift the custody and visitation burden of proof onto a natural parent?
C. (Roland's III) Was Roland denied due process by trying a Traill County action in Cass County?
D. (Roland's IV) Was Johnathan denied due process by the absence of GAL and by not being allowed to testify?
E. (Roland's V) Was The Hon. Lawrence Leclerc biased and incompetent?
F. (Roland's VI) Were the Court's Findings on domestic violence insufficient?
G. (Roland's VII) Were the Court's Findings on comparative domestic violence unsupported?
H. (Roland's VIII) Did the Court err in accepting testimony about Jenese's religion?
I. (Roland's IX) Was the Court's finding that Roland committed adultery sufficiently supported?
J. (Roland's X) Was the Court's finding of "extreme cruelty" sufficiently supported?
K. (Roland's XI) Did the Court err by finding the parties' premarital agreement unenforceable?
L. (Roland's XII) Does Article XI, Section 23 of the North Dakota Constitution provide Roland any protection or right?
M. (Roland's XIII) Was the Court required to hold an in camera settlement conference?
N. (Roland's XIV) Did the Court impermissibly change its visitation findings?
O. (Roland's XV) Did the Court err in valuing assets and debts by accepting Jenese's claims and rejecting Roland's?
P. (Roland's XVI) Was the Court's spousal support award unsupported?
Q. (Roland's XVII) Could the Court require Roland to secure his support awards?
R. (Roland's XVIII) Could the Court require Roland to provide health insurance for Johnathan?
S. (Roland's XIX) Did the Court award Jenese too much personal property?
T. (Roland's XX) Did the Court award Jenese too much in attorney's fees?
U. (Roland's XXI) Did the Court err by deeming Roland's criminal guilty plea an admission to the facts upon which that plea was based?
|Add Docket 20010135 RSS|
|1||05/23/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/21/2001|
|2||05/23/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/22/2001|
|3||06/05/2001 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 07/11/2001|
|4||06/28/2001 MOTION FOR Modification of Supersedeas Bond|
|5||06/28/2001 NO ACTION TAKEN (must be first submitted to trial court)|
|6||07/09/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED 1-19-01|
|7||07/10/2001 DISK - TRA dated 1-19-01 (e-mailed)|
|8||07/11/2001 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (Gail E. Wells & Steven W. Randall)|
|9||07/11/2001 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 08/20/2001|
|10||07/12/2001 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR, BRIEF AND AFFIDAVIT|
|11||07/13/2001 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Remanded). Granted|
|12||07/13/2001 ORDER OF REMAND|
|13||07/13/2001 Order of Remand Mailed to Parties|
|14||07/31/2001 MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT - EN BANC - FOR SUPPORT HEARING W/ATTACHMENTS|
|15||08/01/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED January 18, & 19, 2001 (Vol I)|
|16||08/02/2001 DISK - TRA dated January 18 & 19, 2001|
|17||08/07/2001 JENESE PETERS-RIEMERS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT FOR SUPPORT HEARING|
|18||08/08/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|19||08/08/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|20||08/09/2001 Objection to Attorney Testimony from AT Roland C. Riemers, pro se dated 8-7-01|
|21||08/09/2001 NO ACTION TAKEN (on Objection to Atty Testimony)|
|22||08/10/2001 TRANSCRIPTS DATED February 26, 27 & 28, 2001 (Volumes II, III & IV)|
|23||08/10/2001 DISK - TRA's of Feb. 26, 27 & 28, 2001 (1 document electronic filing)|
|24||08/22/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL (8 Vols.), orig. transcripts dated 8-24-00 & 2-28-01, & Exhibits (w/exception of|
|25||08/22/2001 Defendant's Ex. 143 - Gun, which is part of Clerk's Cert. #198)|
|26||09/11/2001 Petition and Demand for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, Brief/Support & Affidiavit in Support|
|27||09/12/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (MOT/guardian ad litem). Denied|
|28||09/19/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|29||09/19/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|30||09/27/2001 Corrected T.O.A. & pages 17,23,24,&27 for ATB & Corrected T.O.C. & added Appendix T, U, V, & W for|
|32||09/28/2001 DISK - ATB|
|33||10/08/2001 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (via fax)|
|34||10/08/2001 ACTION BY CLERK (w/understanding on December Term). Granted: 11/09/2001|
|35||10/09/2001 Original and 7 copies of Motion Ext./Time Appellee Brief|
|36||10/12/2001 Response to Appellee's Request to Delay Filing of Appellee's Brief|
|37||10/12/2001 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (State of ND)|
|38||10/12/2001 DISK - (Amicus Curiae Brief)|
|39||11/06/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|40||11/06/2001 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|41||11/07/2001 DISK - AEB|
|42||11/21/2001 Reply Brief of Appellant (Withdrawn & replaced by RYB filed 12-4-01)|
|43||11/26/2001 CONTEMPT MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (Ex. 1 attached); AFF. IN SUPPORT; PROPOSED ORDER|
|44||11/27/2001 MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDER AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT|
|45||11/28/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Remanded for action on contempt motion; jurisdiction retained). Granted|
|46||12/04/2001 REQUEST TO REPLACE REPLY BRIEF|
|47||12/04/2001 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Req/replace RYB). Granted|
|48||12/04/2001 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|49||12/04/2001 DISK - RYB|
|50||12/06/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request for Stay). Denied|
|51||12/06/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|52||12/13/2001 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Michael L. Gjesdahl|
|53||12/13/2001 ARGUED: Riemers; Gjesdahl (Vol. X; Page 186)|
|54||12/13/2001 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|55||02/13/2002 REQUESTED REMAND ON ISSUES OF CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT (w/attachments)|
|56||02/21/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (MOT/remand on child support & spousal support). Denied|
|57||02/21/2002 MOTION FOR REMAND (sua sponted)|
|58||02/21/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (MOT/remand/retaining jx). Granted|
|59||02/21/2002 ORDER OF REMAND|
|60||02/21/2002 Order of Remand & Order denying remand mailed to Parties, Clerk, Trial Judge|
|61||03/05/2002 Petition for Reconsideration on Spousal Support|
|62||03/05/2002 Petition for Writ of Mandamus &/or Supervisory Writ|
|63||03/13/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (MOT/reconsideration on spousal support). Denied|
|64||03/13/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Writ of Mandamus or supervision). Denied|
|65||03/13/2002 Order Mailed to Parties, clerk, trial court|
|66||04/10/2002 MOTION FOR VISITATION CHANGE AND REMAND FOR CONTEMPT, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, AND EXHIBITS. Denied|
|67||04/17/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (re Motion and Remand). Denied|
|68||04/29/2002 Certified copy of District Court Order on Remand to Amend Findings of Fact|
|69||05/14/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|70||05/14/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.|
|71||05/14/2002 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|72||05/14/2002 Taking of Judicial Notice on Property Remand|
|73||05/17/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|74||05/22/2002 Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Supervisory Writ|
|75||05/24/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|76||05/28/2002 Notice of Entry of Judgment and Affidavit of Service by Mail|
|77||05/29/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Supervisory Writ). Denied|
|78||05/29/2002 Order denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus Mailed to Riemers, Gjesdahl,Clerk, & Judge Rothe-Seeger|
|79||05/31/2002 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE - Disk of Petition for Rehearing not rec'd scanned per PM|
|80||05/31/2002 Addendum to Petition for Rehearing & or Reconsideration|
|81||05/31/2002 DISK - Addendum to Petition for Rehearing|
|82||06/03/2002 DISK - Pet. for Rehearing|
|83||06/04/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Petition for Rehearing). Denied|
|85||08/13/2002 Copy of Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court|
|86||09/16/2002 Letter from U.S. Supreme Court dated 9-10-02 (Case placed on S.C. docket)|
|87||11/29/2002 Courtesy copies of Petition for Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court (distributed)|
|88||03/03/2003 Letter from William K. Suter, Clerk of US Supreme Court dated 2-24-03 RE: denial of Petition for|
|89||03/03/2003 Writ of Certiorari|
|90||06/14/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|91||08/29/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|