Reineke v. Reineke

20030014 Frances M. Reineke, Plaintiff, Appellee
and Cross-Appellant
v.
Ronald K. Reineke, Defendant, Appellant
and Cross-Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
Nature of Action: Divorce/Property Div./Alimony
Counsel:
Appellant: Kellington & Oster, P.C.
Appellee: Neubauer & Oster
Term: 09/2003   Argument: 09/10/2003  2:45pm
ND cite: 2003 ND 167
NW cite: 670 N.W.2d 841

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in its distribution of marital assets and marital debts between the respective parties?
II. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding spousal support to the Appellee?
III. Assuming the Supreme Court affirms the District Court's award of spousal support to the Appellee, was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding the Appellee $300.00 a month in spousal support beginning November 15, 2002 to November 15, 2006 or until the Appellee remarried?
IV. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in refusing to allow the children to testify as to their preferences and other relevant matters pertaining to custody and visitation?
V. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in denying the Appellant's Request for an Appointment of a Custody Investigator to investigate the best interests of the children relating to custody?
VI. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding custody of the two (2) children to the Appellee?


Issues in Appellant's Reply Brief
1. Whether the trial court awarded inadequate and limited rehabilitative support to a spouse in a long-term marriage, without consideration of permanent support
a. Whether the trial court erroneously applied the law of spousal support by failing to follow the law and evidence in setting an inadequate amount of spousal support for a limited duration
b. Whether the limitations on the amount and duration of spousal support are contrary to the evidence
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs in the divorce.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Appellee and Cross-Appellant's issues on Cross-Appeal.
1. Whether the trial court awarded inadequate and limited rehabilitative support to a spouse in a long-term marriage, without consideration of permanent support.
a. The trial court erroneously applied the law of spousal support by failing to follow the law and evidence in setting an inadequate amount of spousal support for a limited duration.
b. The limitations on the amount and duration of spousal support are contrary to the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs in the divorce.
B. Restatement of Appellant's issues on Appeal.
1. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in its distribution of marital assets and marital debt between respective parties?
2. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding spousal support to the Appellee?
3. Assuming the Supreme Court affirms the District Court's award of spousal support to the Appellee, was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding the Appellee $300.00 a month in spousal support beginning November 15, 2002, to November 15, 2006, or until the Appellee remarried?
4. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in refusing to allow the children to testify as to their preference and other relevant matters pertaining to custody and visitation?
5. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in denying the Appellant's Request for an Appointment of a Custody Investigator to investigate the best interests of the children relating to custody?
6. Was the District Court clearly erroneous in awarding custody of the two (2) children to Appellee?

Add Docket 20030014 RSS Add Docket 20030014 RSS

Docket entries:
101/10/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/08/2003
201/17/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 01/15/2003
301/21/2003 Admission of Service of Order for Transcript & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 03/06/2003
401/24/2003 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL
502/25/2003 TRANSCRIPT COMMENCING OCTOBER 10, 2002 (2 VOLUMES)
602/25/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL including exhibits. Not forwarded w/the record were Nos. 57 & 84 (Ct. Rptr. Notes
702/25/2003 DISK - TRA 10-10-02
804/04/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
904/04/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1004/07/2003 DISK - ATB
1104/11/2003 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF & Affidavit in Support
1204/11/2003 ACTION BY CLERK (with understanding case will be heard in September). Granted: 06/04/2003
1304/14/2003 Copies of Trial Court Docket Sheets for ATA (inserted)
1406/04/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
1506/04/2003 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1606/04/2003 DISK - aeb
1706/25/2003 DISK - RYB
1806/30/2003 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REPLY BRIEF WORD LIMIT (faxed copy)
1906/30/2003 E-FILED MOTION (RYB word limit Ext.)
2007/01/2003 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (RYB Word Limit Extension). Granted
2107/01/2003 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
2207/01/2003 Original of Faxed Motion for Extension of RYB word limit
2309/10/2003 APPEARANCES: Theresa L. Zimmerman and Brenda A. Neubauer
2409/10/2003 ARGUED: Zimmerman; Neubauer (Vol. Y; Page 138)
2509/10/2003 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2611/13/2003 DISPOSITION (and Remanded): AFFIRMED
2711/13/2003 SPLIT OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
2811/13/2003 (CONCUR AND DISSENT): Neumann, William A.: CON/DIS
2911/12/2003 (CONCUR AND DISSENT): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CON/DIS
3011/13/2003 Justice Maring also signed Justice Neumann's concurring & dissenting.
3111/13/2003 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
3211/17/2003 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
3312/05/2003 MANDATE
3412/10/2003 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3511/12/2009 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/22/2014