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:

Counsel:

Appellant:		Pro se
Appellee:		LaRoy Baird, P.C.

Term:

02/2003 Argument: 02/24/2003 04:00pm

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

Docket entries:

1	11/18/2002	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/15/2002
2	11/18/2002	MOTION TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT (see NOA)
3	11/18/2002	Copy of trial court order extending time for filing notice of appeal
4	12/11/2002	RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols.) and Exhibits
5	12/18/2002	APPELLANT BRIEF
6	12/18/2002	APPELLANT APPENDIX
7	01/07/2003	DISK (ATB)
8	01/15/2003	MOTION TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE (faxed letter dated 1-15-03 from Mr. Baird)
9	01/16/2003	APPELLEE BRIEF
10	01/17/2003	DISK - AEB
11	01/21/2003	REPLY BRIEF
12	01/23/2003	DISK of RYB
13	01/30/2003	ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (OA waived on behalf of Appellant and Appellee). Granted
14	02/24/2003	APPEARANCES: submitted on briefs
15	02/24/2003	ARGUED: submitted on briefs (Vol. Y; Page 93)
16	05/06/2003	DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
17	05/06/2003	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
18	05/06/2003	Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
19	05/07/2003	Judgment Mailed to Parties
20	05/18/2003	PETITION FOR REHEARING
21	05/23/2003	DISK - PER (e-mailed)
22	06/03/2003	ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
23	06/11/2003	MANDATE
24	06/13/2003	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
25	09/09/2008	EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/18/2013