Nelson v. Johnson
Kathy Nelson, Plaintiff and Appellee
Carol Johnson, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Steven E. McCullough
|Nature of Action:||Landlord/Tenant|
|Term:||10/2009  Argument: 10/01/2009 10:45AM|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 23|
778 N.W.2d 773
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1.The trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, for lack of service of process of the three-day notice required by N.D.C.C. 33-06-02 and Rule 4, and Defendant requests the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment.
2. Alternatively, the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss as a matter of law, for Plaintiff's failure to state any claim on which relief could be granted, because the statutory notice required by N.D.C.C. 33-06-02 was not given. Defendant requests this Court to find that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice on that basis.
3.The trial court erred in ruling that a defense of retaliatory eviction may not be asserted in a forcible detainer action, as a matter of law. Defendant requests this Court to establish that a tenant may assert such a defense in a residential eviction action under applicable North Dakota. Defendant further requests this Court to find that Defendant sustained her burden of proving the defense of retaliatory eviction as a bar to recovery by the Plaintiff, as a matter of law.
4.Finally, the trial court made no specific findings or conclusions of law at the hearing in regard to Defendant's affirmative defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel, which Defendant also asserted as bars to recovery by the Plaintiff. Defendant believes the trial court may have abused its discretion in that respect, and requests this Court to find that under the facts presented in this case, Defendant sustained her burden of proving both such defenses as a bar to recovery by the Plaintiff in this proceeding.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellant Carol Johnson ["Johnson"]sets forth four (4) appellate issues arising out of the Judgment of March 3, 2009, obtained against her in an eviction action. The first two (2) issues raised by Johnson involve the service of the statutory notice, required under N.D.C.C. 33-06-02 as a condition prerequisite to maintain an eviction action. Appellee Kathy Nelson ["Nelson"] submits the first two (2) issues of Johnson asserted in the alternative, should be combined and phrased as follows:
1. Can the three day notice to quit, required under N.D.C.C. 33-06-02, be served upon a tenant by posting?
Nelson submits Johnson's third and fourth issues are moot; Johnson has vacated Nelson's premises. However if such issues were determined by this Court not to be moot, the issues should be framed as follows:
2. Do the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and oral pronouncements at hearing adequately explain why the district court rejected Johnson's defenses of retaliatory eviction, waiver or equitable estoppel?
3. Was the district court clearly erroneous when it rejected Johnson's alleged defenses to the eviction action?
|Add Docket 20090133 RSS|
|1||04/28/2009||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/27/2009|
|2||05/27/2009||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/14/2009|
|3||06/01/2009||MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE|
|4||06/02/2009||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT) TRA due 7/6/09 - ATB/ATA due 40 days after TRA filed. Granted|
|5||06/23/2009||Letter from Attorney Gregory Thompson dated 6-22-09 RE: No longer represents Kathy Nelson|
|6||07/01/2009||TRANSCRIPT DATED February 25, 2009, & C.O.S.|
|7||07/02/2009||DISK-tra (2/25/09) e-mailed|
|8||07/06/2009||RECORD ON APPEAL|
|9||07/06/2009||APPELLANT BRIEF & ATTACHED APPENDIX|
|11||07/24/2009||Rec'd corrected 8 copies of TOA and corresponding pages|
|12||07/24/2009||Rec'd 9 separate appendices.|
|13||07/27/2009||Affidavit of Service by Mail (ATB)|
|15||08/06/2009||DISK - AEB (CD-ROM)|
|16||08/27/2009||MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT. RspDue: 09/08/2009|
|17||09/09/2009||Response to Motion to Dismiss Appeal Filed|
|18||09/14/2009||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT MAILED|
|19||09/22/2009||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot/Dismiss). Denied|
|20||09/23/2009||Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Mailed to Parties|
|21||10/01/2009||APPEARANCES: Carol Johnson,pro se/Jonathan T. Garaas|
|23||10/01/2009||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|25||02/17/2010||SPLIT OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|26||02/17/2010||(DISSENTING): Sandstrom, Dale V.: DISSENT|
|27||02/17/2010||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|28||02/18/2010||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|30||03/30/2010||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|