Peters-Riemers v. Riemers

20010274 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 Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Gjesdahl Law, P.C.
Term: 02/2002   Argument: 02/13/2002  Waived
ND cite: 2002 ND 49
NW cite: 641 N.W.2d 83


Issues: 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 Add Docket 20010274 RSS

Docket entries:
111/02/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/01/2001
211/09/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (Vicky Matthys): 11/05/2001
311/09/2001 Copy of letter dated 11-07-01 from Vicky Matthys, Ct. Reporter, to Roland Riemers re TRA
411/26/2001 CONTEMPT MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION (Ex. 1 attached); AFF. IN SUPPORT; PROPOSED ORDER
511/28/2001 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Remanded for action on contempt motion; jurisdiction retained). Granted
611/27/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED October 30, 2001
711/27/2001 DISK - TRA (10-30-01) (e-mailed)
811/30/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL
912/21/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF
1012/21/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1112/27/2001 DISK of ATB
1201/09/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF
1301/09/2002 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1401/10/2002 DISK - AEB
1501/17/2002 JOINT WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION ON BRIEFS (AT/AE)
1601/23/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (OA waived - AT/AE). Granted
1702/13/2002 APPEARANCES: submitted on brief for AT and AE
1802/13/2002 ARGUED: submitted on brief for AT and AE (Vol. X; Page 205)
1903/12/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2003/12/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
2103/12/2002 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
2203/13/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2303/21/2002 Notice of Entry of Judgment & Affidavit of Service
2403/26/2002 PETITION FOR REHEARING
2504/02/2002 DISK - PER
2604/16/2002 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied
2704/24/2002 MANDATE
2804/29/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2910/03/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/27/2014