Peters-Riemers v. Riemers

20030081 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 Georgia Dawson
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellant: Gjesdahl Law, P.C.
Term: 11/2003   Argument: 11/26/2003  1:30pm
ND cite: 2004 ND 28
NW cite: 674 N.W.2d 287

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the Court err in law and/or fact and/or abuse its discretion by not following the correct legal procedure for contempt?
II. Did the Court err in law by ordering contempt as well as a money judgment?
III. Was Roland put in double jeopardy for the same repeated contempts?
IV. Did the Court err in law by shifting the burden of proof to Roland under NDCC 27-10-01.3(1)(a) in a proceedings that could result in jail?
V. Did the Court err in awarding attorney fees to Jenese?
VI. Did the Court abuse its discretion and violate Federal law for ordering Roland to pay more then 50% of his disposable income to Jenese?
VII. Did the Court violate state and federal prohibitions of imprisonment for debts and obligations as well as 42 USCS Section 1994 &/or 5526 by ordering Roland to be put in jail for failure to pay a past support obligation?
VIII. Did the Court err in law and abuse its discretion by not allowing a change of venue in a post divorce matter?
IX. Did the Court violate Roland's state and federal due process rights and state right to a remedy by using a contempt proceeding before the Court was able to first make a finding on his motion to amend support levels?

Appellant's Reply Brief Issues:
A. Did the district court follow the proper procedure for contempt as:
1. Did Roland have the right to appear both pro se and with counsel?
2. Was the Garaas Office required to withdraw from this matter?
3. Did Roland carry the "keys to his prison" to purge his contempt?
B. Did the district court properly order contempt as well as a money judgement for past support or:
1. Did the money judgment purge Roland's contempt?
2. Did the trial court properly included spousal support and attorney's fees in its money judgment?
3. Did the money judgment deprive Roland of his right to a remedy?
C. Does double jeopardy apply in civil contempt cases?
D. Did the trial court properly place the burden of proof on Roland regarding his inability to pay?
E. Did the trial court properly awarded attorney's fees in this action?
F. Did the trial court properly order Roland to pay his arrears?
G. Does Roland unconstitutionally face jail for failure to pay a "debt?"
H. Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to change venue in this matter?
I. Do Roland's remaining arguments lack merit?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The Appellant, Roland C. Riemers ("Roland)", presents nine (9) issues for review to this court. Many of these issues are repeated throughout the various sections of Roland's brief. For ease and continuity, Appellee, Jenese Peters-Riemers, ("Jenese"), will respond to Roland's issues in the same order.

Add Docket 20030081 RSS Add Docket 20030081 RSS

Docket entries:
103/27/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/26/2003
203/27/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 03/26/2003
304/03/2003 Copy of letter dated 4-02-03 from Gail Wells, Ct. Reporter, to Mr. Riemers re advance payment
404/07/2003 MOTION FOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS BY PETERS-RIEMERS
504/09/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Stay). Denied
604/09/2003 Order Mailed to Parties
704/08/2003 EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR REMAND (Roland Riemers)
804/08/2003 E-FILED MOTION (via fax)
904/09/2003 Original Emergency Request for Stay Pending Appeal and Request for Remand
1004/11/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Emergency Request for Stay and Remand). Denied
1104/11/2003 Notice from Gail Wells that preparation of the transcript is suspended for failure to pay
1204/17/2003 copy of letter dated 4/15/03 from Gail Wells to Mr. Riemers acknowledging advanced payment of TRA
1305/14/2003 TRANSCRIPT DATED January 27, 2003
1405/14/2003 DISK - TRA (1-27-03)
1505/21/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL (12 vols.) (See Case No. 20020225)
1605/21/2003 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated May 20, 2003 (Entries 1-77)
1705/27/2003 Petition for Remand on Child Visitation
1806/04/2003 Copies of motion pending in trial and court and order
1906/09/2003 Clerk's Supplemental Cert. dated June 6, 2003, with entries 402-404 (78-80) attached
2006/11/2003 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Remand). Denied
2106/11/2003 Order Mailed to Parties, trial judge, clerk
2206/12/2003 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
2306/12/2003 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 07/23/2003
2407/10/2003 Original and 2 copies each of transcripts dated 12/18/01 & 2/19/02
2507/15/2003 RETURN OF ROA TO DIST. CT.
2607/15/2003 Order of Return of Record Mailed to Parties
2707/23/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
2807/23/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
2907/24/2003 DISK - atb
3008/21/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
3108/22/2003 DISK - aeb
3208/22/2003 Application for Permission to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Jason W. McLean for Appellee; Affidavit
3308/22/2003 of Jason W. McLean; and Affidavit of Michael L. Gjesdahl
3408/22/2003 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. granted
3509/06/2003 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
3609/12/2003 Corrected cover page, Table of Authorities, & Page 8 for ryb
3709/12/2003 DISK - RYB
3810/30/2003 RE-FILED RECORD ON APPEAL (16 VOLs), Exhibits & Transcripts (7) (Not rec'd: Exh.No.23-Book &
3910/30/2003 No. 143-Gun from No. 198; Exh No. 1 - Pictures of Visits, etc. from #427)
4011/26/2003 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Jason W. McLean, Michael L. Gjesdahl
4111/26/2003 ARGUED: Riemers; McLean (Vol. Y; Page 174)
4211/26/2003 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
4301/28/2004 DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
4401/28/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
4501/28/2004 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellant
4601/29/2004 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
4702/11/2004 PETITION FOR REHEARING
4802/12/2004 DISK - PER
4902/25/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied
5003/08/2004 MANDATE
5103/10/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
5202/09/2010 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/27/2014