Peters-Riemers v. Riemers

20010135

Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Roland C. Riemers, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from:

District Court, East Central Judicial District, Traill County
Judge Lawrence A. Leclerc

Nature of Action:

Counsel:

Appellant:		Pro se
Appellee:		Gjesdahl Law Office
Amicus curiae:		Reid Alan Brady , Att. General Office

Term:

12/2001 Argument: 12/13/2001 01:30pm

ND cite:

2002 ND 72

NW cite:

644 N.W.2d 197

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Issues:

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

Docket entries:

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
31	09/27/2001	Appendix
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
84	06/12/2002	MANDATE
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

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/13/2012