Bertsch v. Bertsch
Andrew M. Bertsch, Plaintiff, Appellant
Lynell C. Bertsch, Defendant, Appellee
North Central Judicial District,
Judge William W. McLees
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||12/2005  Argument: 12/13/2005|
|ND cite:||2006 ND 31|
710 N.W.2d 113
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the Trial Court take into account the best interests of the minor child when setting forth its visitation schedule in this matter?
II. Did the Trial Court err in amending the visitation rights of Andrew and Lindsey by eliminating Tuesday night visitations?
III. Did the Trial Court err in amending the visitation rights of Andrew and Lindsey, which were serving the best interests of Lindsey?
IV. Did the Trial Court err by modifying the visitation schedule which was serving the best interests of the child simply because the child was getting older?
V. Did the Trial Court err in not recognizing sworn admissions made under oath by Lynell to the Court in a judicial proceeding as having the binding effect of a contract?
VI. Did the Trial Court err in not issuing a decision regarding the correct amount of child support payments that have been made in this case?
Reply Brief Issues
1.Did Andrew Bertsch waive his appeal?
2.Did the District Court err on modifying visitation?
3.Did the District Court err in including the language of the original August 15, 2001 Judgment as a part of its Amended Judgment herein?
4.Did the District Court properly calculate child support and the effective date?
5.Did the District Court err in not awarding attorney fees? 6. Did the District Court err in the entering of its Amended Judgment?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Did Andrew Bertsch waive his appeal by registering the proceedings in Maryland prior to the entry of judgement in North Dakota.
II.Did the Trial Court err on Modifying Visitation.
III.Did the Trial Court err in not striking the parenting language when it was gratuitously inserted in the 2001 judgement.
IV.Did the Trial Court properly calculate child support.
V.Did the Trial Court err on Attorney fees when the opposing party drove cost and delayed the case.
VI.Did the Trial Court impermissibly revise its memorandum and order by the amended judgement after the Appeal was taken.
|Add Docket 20050183 RSS|
|1||05/27/2005 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/26/2005|
|2||06/01/2005 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL (filed in trial court on 5-31-05)|
|3||06/01/2005 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/01/2005|
|4||06/01/2005 MOTION FOR LIMITED REMAND TO TRIAL COURT|
|5||06/01/2005 Reset due date of Appellant's Brief (due to remand)|
|6||06/01/2005 ACTION BY CLERK (DUE 40 days after TRA is filed; 8/30/05 is approx. date). Granted: 08/30/2005|
|7||06/01/2005 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MOT/REMAND). Granted|
|8||06/01/2005 Order of Limited Remand Mailed to Parties|
|9||06/01/2005 ORDER OF REMAND|
|10||06/08/2005 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Laurel Marsh): 07/21/2005|
|11||07/18/2005 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|12||07/19/2005 TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2004|
|13||07/20/2005 DISK - TRA (11/16/04)|
|14||08/11/2005 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (faxed)|
|15||08/11/2005 E-FILED MOTION (MAT)|
|16||08/15/2005 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 09/21/2005|
|17||08/17/2005 RECORD ON APPEAL (5 vols.) & Exhibits (Not rec'd were: #12,18,19,21,24,25,26,37,38,39,|
|19||08/17/2005 223, & 224, which the clerk indicates were withdrawn on 8-21-01)|
|20||09/02/2005 Second Notice of Appeal (filed in trial court on 9-1-05)|
|21||09/08/2005 Amended Notice of Cross-Appeal filed in trial court on 9-6-05|
|22||09/21/2005 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|23||09/21/2005 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|24||09/21/2005 DISK - ATB (e-mailed)|
|25||09/27/2005 Clerk's Supp. Cert. of ROA dated September 26, 2005, with entries 359-366 attached|
|26||10/20/2005 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|27||10/20/2005 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|28||10/21/2005 DISK - aeb|
|29||10/25/2005 Page ii for AEB|
|30||11/07/2005 Appellant's and Cross-Appellee's Motion to Strike & Brief in Support. RspDue: 11/18/2005|
|31||11/14/2005 Response to Appellant/Cross-Appellee's Motion to Strike|
|32||11/14/2005 MOTION FOR EXT/WORD/LIMIT/RYB (e-filed)|
|33||11/14/2005 E-FILED MOTION (Mot/Ext/Word/Limit/RYB)|
|34||11/14/2005 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot/Ext/Word/Limit for RYB). Granted|
|35||11/14/2005 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|36||11/15/2005 Corrected TOA & page 8 for RYB|
|37||11/15/2005 DISK - ryb (e-mailed)|
|38||11/17/2005 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Graff, Benny A.|
|39||11/17/2005 Reply to Response to Appellant's and Cross-Appellee's Motion to Strike|
|40||11/17/2005 E-FILED Reply to Response to Appellant's and Cross-Appellee's Motion to Strike (email)|
|41||11/23/2005 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion to Strike granted) (Pages 163 through 198 stricken from AEA, and. Granted|
|42||11/23/2005 sanctions in the amount of $1,500 imposed to be paid within 30 days)|
|43||11/29/2005 Revised pages 6, 7, and 14 of Appellee's Brief, w/copy of letter dated 11-28-05 to Mr. Pippin|
|44||11/29/2005 and copy of Bosard McCutcheon & Rau check no. 6841 to Malcolm Pippin in payment of sanctions|
|45||11/30/2005 DISK - Revised AEB|
|46||12/05/2005 MOTION FOR Reconsideration of Motion to Strike (w/Brief and Affidavit in Support)|
|47||12/13/2005 APPEARANCES: H. Malcolm Pippin; Robert S. Rau|
|48||12/13/2005 ARGUED: Pippin; Rau|
|49||12/13/2005 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|50||12/14/2005 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Reconsideration). Denied|
|51||12/21/2005 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 12-19-05 (Entry Nos. 367-371)|
|52||02/02/2006 DISPOSITION (REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|53||02/02/2006 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|54||02/02/2006 Costs on appeal awarded in favor of Appellee|
|55||02/02/2006 Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|57||03/09/2006 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|58||11/02/2015 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|