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 1:30pm|
|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|
|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|
|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|