Marsden v. Koop
Serena Marsden f/k/a
Serena Koop, Plaintiff and Appellant
Jason Koop, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Judge Debbie Gordon Kleven
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||03/2010  Argument: 03/18/2010|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 196|
789 N.W.2d 531
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Whether the custody determination rendered by the District Court is clearly erroneous given the facts and circumstances of this case.
II. Whether the alleged debt owed by the Defendant/Appellee to his father in the amount of $8,000.00 is a gift rather than a debt, and therefore, should be considered as such in the distribution of the marital estate.
III. Whether the interest the Plaintiff/Appellant inherited in the home and the business owned by her father should have been awarded in its entirety to the Plaintiff/Appellant.
Reply Brief Issues
I. Whether the Trial Court failed to appropriately consider the Custody Investigator's report and recommendations.
II. Whether the Trial Court failed to appropriately consider the best interest factors set forth at N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1).
III. Whether the Trial Court erred by including in the marital estate the value of Serena's inheritance from her father.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The trial court did not clearly err in rendering its custody determination.
a. The trial court appropriately considered the custody investigator's report and recommendations.
b. The trial court appropriately considered the best interest factors contained in N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1).
c. Serena's other assignments of error lack merit.
2. The trial court did not clearly err in its distribution of the marital estate.
a. The trial court did not clearly err in characterizing the $8,000 payment from Jason's father to Jason as a loan.
b. The trial court did not clearly err in including in the marital estate the value of Serena's inheritance from her father.
|Add Docket 20090285 RSS|
|1||10/02/2009 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/30/2009|
|2||10/02/2009 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/30/2009|
|3||10/14/2009 Acknowledgment of OTR & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 11/19/2009|
|4||11/16/2009 TRANSCRIPT DATED July 29, 2009 & C.O.S.|
|5||11/16/2009 DISK - tra (7-29-09) (e-mailed)|
|6||11/18/2009 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 volumes)|
|7||11/27/2009 MOTION FOR STAY, BRIEF AND APPENDIX|
|8||12/02/2009 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|9||12/03/2009 Order Sent to Parties|
|10||12/23/2009 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|11||12/23/2009 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|12||12/24/2009 DISK - atb (e-filed)|
|13||01/22/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|14||01/22/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (aeb)|
|15||01/22/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|16||01/22/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)|
|17||01/25/2010 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #19320)|
|18||02/02/2010 Received copies of AEB from CSD|
|19||02/02/2010 Received copies of AEA from CSD|
|20||02/16/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||02/17/2010 REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|22||02/17/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|23||03/02/2010 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD|
|24||03/18/2010 APPEARANCES: Patti J. Jensen/Bradley W. Parrish|
|25||03/18/2010 ARGUED: Jensen/Parrish|
|26||03/18/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|27||10/19/2010 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|28||10/19/2010 SPLIT OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|29||10/19/2010 (CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CON/DIS|
|30||10/19/2010 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor or Appellee|
|31||10/20/2010 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|33||11/24/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|