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:

Counsel:

Appellant:		McIntee Law Firm
Appellee:		Rebecca C. Graves

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
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

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

Docket entries:

1	08/29/2007	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/27/2007
2	09/26/2007	MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
3	09/26/2007	ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 10/16/2007
4	09/28/2007	RECORD ON APPEAL (with separate entry 103(report)); not received entries 95, 98, 99, 100 which were
5	09/28/2007	entry 102 appears to have been also docketed as 104
6	10/12/2007	APPELLANT BRIEF
7	10/12/2007	APPELLANT APPENDIX
8	10/15/2007	DISK - ATB
9	11/12/2007	APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)
10	11/12/2007	E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
11	11/12/2007	APPELLEE APPENDIX (faxed)
12	11/12/2007	E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA) Faxed
13	11/15/2007	Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #17911)
14	11/20/2007	Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating.
15	11/20/2007	Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating.
16	12/17/2007	APPEARANCES: Michael S. McIntee; Rebecca C. Graves
17	12/17/2007	ARGUED: McIntee; Graves
18	12/17/2007	ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
19	02/21/2008	DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
20	02/21/2008	SPLIT OPINION: sandstrom: Sandstrom, Dale V.
21	02/21/2008	(Specially concurring in the result): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CONCUR
22	02/21/2008	(Concurring in the result): Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CONCUR
23	02/21/2008	(JOIN CONCUR): Crothers, Daniel John: JN/CON
24	02/21/2008	Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of appellant
25	02/22/2008	Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
26	03/14/2008	MANDATE
27	03/19/2008	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 12/01/2008