L.C.V. v. D.E.G.
L.C.V., Plaintiff and Appellant
D.E.G., Defendant and Appellee
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Lawrence A. Leclerc
|Nature of Action:||Paternity|
|Term:||09/2005  Argument: 09/07/2005 1:30pm|
|ND cite:||2005 ND 180|
705 N.W.2d 257
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
A. Is the trial court's findings of fact that the parties' shared joint physical custody of A.F.V. prior to trial clearly erroneous?
1. Is the trial court's finding that L.C.V. was not A.F.V.'s primary caretaker clearly erroneous?
2. Is the trial court's finding that in the early years A.F.V. resided equally in both parties' home clearly erroneous?
B. Is the trial court's findings of fact that the best interest factors favor D.E.G. clearly erroneous?
C. Did the trial court commit reversible error in arbitrarily disregarding the conclusion of the custody investigator?
D. Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to award L.C.V. retroactive child support?
E. Did the trial court commit reversible error in failing to award L.C.V. attorney's fees?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Did the trial court's assessment of the best interests factors adequately support the court's conclusion that the father should be awarded custody, even though the custody investigator had recommended joint custody?
B. Should the trial court have awarded retroactive child support in light of its factual findings that the parties had shared custody prior to the commencement of a paternity action?
C. Does North Dakota Century Code Section 14-17-15 support an award of attorney's fees when there has not been a finding of a frivolous claim for relief?
|Add Docket 20050008 RSS|
|1||01/11/2005||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/07/2005|
|2||01/11/2005||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 01/07/2005|
|3||01/11/2005||THIS CASE IS CONFIDENTIAL|
|4||01/31/2005||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|5||01/31/2005||MOTION and Brief for Stay Pending Appeal|
|6||01/31/2005||Affidavit of Service by Mail of Motion and Brief for Stay Pending Appeal|
|7||02/02/2005||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot/Stay). Denied|
|8||02/03/2005||RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 02/26/2005|
|9||02/25/2005||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT|
|10||02/25/2005||ACTION BY TRIAL COURT (MTR). Granted: 04/06/2005|
|11||04/06/2005||TRANSCRIPTS DATED November 1, 2004 (V.1) & November 2, 2004 (V.2)|
|12||04/06/2005||DISK of tras dtd 11-1-04 & 11-2-04|
|13||04/07/2005||RECORD ON APPEAL, which includes exhibits|
|14||05/10/2005||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF|
|15||05/11/2005||ACTION BY CLERK (MAE). Granted: 06/23/2005|
|16||05/12/2005||Return to Motion for Extension of Time for Appellee's Brief|
|19||05/17/2005||DISK - ATB|
|21||06/23/2005||DISK - AEB|
|22||07/07/2005||REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|23||07/08/2005||DISK - RYB|
|24||07/22/2005||SITTING WITH THE COURT: Fontaine, Laurie A.|
|25||09/07/2005||APPEARANCES: Robert J. Schultz, Stephannie N. Stiel; Maureen Holman|
|26||09/07/2005||ARGUED: Schultz; Holman|
|27||09/07/2005||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|28||10/26/2005||DISPOSITION (Remanded): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|29||10/26/2005||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|30||10/26/2005||At Court's direction, no costs are assessed|
|31||10/26/2005||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|32||11/09/2005||Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 11-4-05 (Entry Nos. 82-84)|
|34||11/21/2005||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|35||07/19/2012||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|