Peters-Riemers v. Riemers
Jenese A. Peters-Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellee
Roland C. Riemers, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||02/2002  Argument: 02/13/2002|
|ND cite:||2002 ND 49|
641 N.W.2d 83
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the court error in law and/or fact and/or abuse its discretion by ignoring Article I, Section 22, of the North Dakota Constitution and the strong public policy protecting homesteads?
II. Did the court error in law and abuse its discretion by allowing the use of a Show Cause procedure instead of a contempt proceeding under the original case C-00-42?
III. Did the court error in law and/or fact and/or abuse its discretion in finding that this action fell under N.D.C.C. 33-06-01(6) in that Roland did not "continue wrongfully in possession?"
IV. Did the court error in law and/or fact and/or abuse its discretion by issuing an eviction order while the case was on appeal to this Court?
V. Were the guidelines for issuing a stay used by the District Court a violation of Federal and State Due Process in that they allow the court too much discretion and are highly speculative, unconstitutionally vague, and are substantive in nature and thus a violation of the separation of powers by this court?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court err in ordering eviction because the eviction order violated the North Dakota Constitution and the strong public policy protecting homesteads? (Roland's Issue I).
II. Did the trial court err in allowing the use of a separate Unlawful Detainer action under N.D.C.C. 33-06-01 rather than requiring a Contempt proceeding in the divorce action under N.D.C.C. 14-05-25.1? (Roland's Issues II and III).
III. Did the trial court err in issuing a written eviction order while the case was on appeal? (Roland's Issue IV).
IV. Were the guidelines for issuing a stay used by the District Court a violation of Federal and State Due Process in that they allow the court too much discretion and are highly speculative, unconstitutionally vague, and are substantive in nature and thus a violation of the separation of powers by this court? (Roland's Issue V).
|Add Docket 20010274 RSS|
|1||11/02/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/01/2001|
|2||11/09/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (Vicky Matthys): 11/05/2001|
|3||11/09/2001 Copy of letter dated 11-07-01 from Vicky Matthys, Ct. Reporter, to Roland Riemers re TRA|
|4||11/26/2001 CONTEMPT MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (Ex. 1 attached); AFF. IN SUPPORT; PROPOSED ORDER|
|5||11/28/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Remanded for action on contempt motion; jurisdiction retained). Granted|
|6||11/27/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED October 30, 2001|
|7||11/27/2001 DISK - TRA (10-30-01) (e-mailed)|
|8||11/30/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|9||12/21/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||12/21/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|11||12/27/2001 DISK of ATB|
|12||01/09/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|13||01/09/2002 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|14||01/10/2002 DISK - AEB|
|15||01/17/2002 JOINT WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION ON BRIEFS (AT/AE)|
|16||01/23/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (OA waived - AT/AE). Granted|
|17||02/13/2002 APPEARANCES: submitted on brief for AT and AE|
|18||02/13/2002 ARGUED: submitted on brief for AT and AE (Vol. X; Page 205)|
|19||03/12/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|20||03/12/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|21||03/12/2002 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|22||03/13/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|23||03/21/2002 Notice of Entry of Judgment & Affidavit of Service|
|24||03/26/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|25||04/02/2002 DISK - PER|
|26||04/16/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|28||04/29/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|29||10/03/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|