Helfenstein v. Schutt

20060383 Lawrence Helfenstein, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Jacqueline Schutt, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: Loren Cay McCray
Appellee: Susan Schmidt Law Office
Term: 05/2007   Argument: 05/08/2007  10:45am
ND cite: 2007 ND 106
NW cite: 735 N.W.2d 410

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Was the trial court's decision to mandate supervised visitation for a period of two years clearly erroneous?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by considering in its decision post hearing letters from the children's therapists without allowing Jacqueline Schutt to cross examine those therapists?
Did the trial court improperly delegate its decision making authority to therapists with respect to visitation?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Did the Court properly deny a motion filed with no affidavits or other evidence presented to demonstrate to the Court that the motion was meritorious?
II.Was appeal of the Order dated August 16, 2006, perfected, and therefore properly before the Court, by the Notice of Appeal dated December 27, 2006?
III.If the Order of August 16, 2006, is properly before the Court, was it error for the Court to reiterate the previous order for supervised visitation with the change from a permanent order to an order for two years?
IV.If the Order of August 16, 2006, is properly before the Court, was it error for the Court to deny the Defendant's request for family therapy when she had failed to bring the necessary evidence before the Court and the Court determined a review of records to determine the appropriateness of family therapy would be a fruitless effort?
V.Was the order for a minimal payment of attorney fees appropriate when the Court determined the motion to be without merit and the Court had examined the Defendant's income and expenses about six weeks prior to the Defendant's motion?

Add Docket 20060383 RSS Add Docket 20060383 RSS

Docket entries:
112/29/2006 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/27/2006
212/29/2006 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/27/2006
301/04/2007 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 02/15/2007
402/02/2007 TRANSCRIPT DATED July 21, 2006
502/02/2007 DISK - TRA of 7-21-06
602/09/2007 RECORD ON APPEAL including separate exhibits and confidential sealed documents. Not sent were
702/09/2007 Nos. 39, 43, 64, 80, 98, 116, 134, 155, 183, 207 & 230 (Court Reporter Notes)
802/09/2007 Also Document No. 215 was listed as missing by the trial court clerk.
903/15/2007 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
1003/15/2007 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)
1103/15/2007 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)
1203/15/2007 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
1303/21/2007 Received $25 surcharge for e-filed ATB (Receipt #17323)
1403/23/2007 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating
1503/23/2007 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating
1604/10/2007 Letter from Mr. Lofgren dated 4/3/07 advising that the Regional Child Support Unit is not involved
1704/15/2007 DISK (AEB) Electronic
1804/16/2007 APPELLEE BRIEF
1904/16/2007 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2004/24/2007 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2104/24/2007 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Graff, Benny A.
2205/08/2007 APPEARANCES: Loren C. McCray; Susan Schmidt
2305/08/2007 ARGUED: McCray; Schmidt
2405/08/2007 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2506/29/2007 DISPOSITION (remanded): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
2606/29/2007 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
2706/29/2007 At Court's direction, no costs will be taxed in this appeal
2806/29/2007 Judgment Mailed to Parties (e-mailed)
2907/23/2007 MANDATE
3007/26/2007 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/21/2014