Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers

20020318 Jan M. Flattum-Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Roland C. Flattum-Riemers, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, McLean County
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: LaRoy Baird, P.C.
Term: 02/2003   Argument: 02/24/2003  Waived
ND cite: 2003 ND 70
NW cite: 660 N.W.2d 558


Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure, Supreme Court Administrative Rules, State Law, Roland's Procedural Due Process Rights, abuse its discretion and clearly error by holding the hearing in Burleigh County instead of McLean County?
II. Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure and abuse its discretion and clearly error by holding the hearing in Burleigh County instead of the granting Roland's demand for a post divorce change of venue to Grand Forks County?
III. Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure and abuse its discretion and clearly error by not requiring 18 + 3 days of service of motion and then going ahead with a hearing?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellant has set forth what he designates as three issues for review in this appeal. Appellee resists any relief under any of the issues, however, does not object to the manner in which Appellant has set forth the issues nor does Appellee have any additional issues for review of this appeal.

Reply Brief Issues
I.Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure, Supreme Court Administrative Rules, State Law, Roland's Procedural Due Process Rights, abuse its discretion and clearly error by holding the hearing in Burleigh County instead of McLean County?
II. Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure and abuse its discretion and clearly error by holding the hearing in Burleigh County instead of the granting Roland's demand for a post divorce change of venue to Grand Forks County?
III. Did the Court violate the N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure and abuse its discretion and clearly error by not requiring 18 + 3 days of service of motion, and then going ahead with a hearing?
IV. NEW ISSUES: Did Roland file the required bond as required by Rule 7 of N.D.R.App.P and did he error by failing to order transcript?

Add Docket 20020318 RSS Add Docket 20020318 RSS

Docket entries:
111/18/2002 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/15/2002
211/18/2002 MOTION TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT (see NOA)
311/18/2002 Copy of trial court order extending time for filing notice of appeal
412/11/2002 RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols.) and Exhibits
512/18/2002 APPELLANT BRIEF
612/18/2002 APPELLANT APPENDIX
701/07/2003 DISK (ATB)
801/15/2003 MOTION TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE (faxed letter dated 1-15-03 from Mr. Baird)
901/16/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
1001/17/2003 DISK - AEB
1101/21/2003 REPLY BRIEF
1201/23/2003 DISK of RYB
1301/30/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (OA waived on behalf of Appellant and Appellee). Granted
1402/24/2003 APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs
1502/24/2003 ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Y; Page 93)
1605/06/2003 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
1705/06/2003 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
1805/06/2003 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
1905/07/2003 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2005/18/2003 PETITION FOR REHEARING
2105/23/2003 DISK - PER (e-mailed)
2206/03/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
2306/11/2003 MANDATE
2406/13/2003 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2509/09/2008 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/23/2014