Frueh v. Frueh

20070254 Darin G. Frueh, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Melissa A. Frueh, n/k/a
Melissa Hoheisel, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Sheridan County
Judge Robert O. Wefald
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: McIntee Law Firm
Appellee: Rebecca Noel Burr
Term: 12/2007   Argument: 12/17/2007  10:45am
ND cite: 2008 ND 26
NW cite: 745 N.W.2d 362

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Is it error for a trial court to deny an evidentiary hearing wherein:
a. The child who is almost 13 has requested the change of custody.
b. The child has alleged that the mother's new husband abused him.
c. The mother has remarried and the child and new husband are not compatible.
2. If the original custody arrangement was by stipulation of the parties, and the non-custodial parent moves to change custody, is the trial court, in deciding whether or not to grant an evidentiary hearing required to review the entire file and the facts about the parties when addressing the best interests of the child, or is the trial court limited to only those events that occurred since the divorce?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing when it determined that the allegations of abuse by the moving party were sufficiently rebutted and lacked credibility.
2.Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing when the moving party failed to show that a twelve-year-old child's preference was reasonable.
3.Whether the remarriage of a custodial parent is enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing in a motion for change of custody.
4.Whether a trial court is obligated to review the entire file in a stipulated divorce and any new facts when determining whether or not to grant an evidentiary hearing in a motion for modification of custody.

Add Docket 20070254 RSS Add Docket 20070254 RSS

Docket entries:
108/29/2007 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/27/2007
209/26/2007 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
309/26/2007 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 10/16/2007
409/28/2007 RECORD ON APPEAL (with separate entry 103(report)); not received entries 95, 98, 99, 100 which were
509/28/2007 entry 102 appears to have been also docketed as 104
610/12/2007 APPELLANT BRIEF
710/12/2007 APPELLANT APPENDIX
810/15/2007 DISK - ATB
911/12/2007 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)
1011/12/2007 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
1111/12/2007 APPELLEE APPENDIX (faxed)
1211/12/2007 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA) Faxed
1311/15/2007 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #17911)
1411/20/2007 Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating.
1511/20/2007 Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating.
1612/17/2007 APPEARANCES: Michael S. McIntee; Rebecca C. Graves
1712/17/2007 ARGUED: McIntee; Graves
1812/17/2007 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1902/21/2008 DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
2002/21/2008 SPLIT OPINION: sandstrom: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2102/21/2008 (Specially concurring in the result): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CONCUR
2202/21/2008 (Concurring in the result): Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CONCUR
2302/21/2008 (JOIN CONCUR): Crothers, Daniel John: JN/CON
2402/21/2008 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of appellant
2502/22/2008 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
2603/14/2008 MANDATE
2703/19/2008 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/22/2014