R.F. v. M.M.

20100046 R.F., individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate
of E.F., deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee
M.M. and R.J.M., a minor child, by
and through her guardian, M.M., Defendants
M.M., Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Douglas R. Herman
Nature of Action: Paternity
Appellee: Gregory William Liebl
Appellant: Stephen R. Dawson
Term: 09/2010   Argument: 09/01/2010  2:45pm
ND cite: 2010 ND 195
NW cite: 789 N.W.2d 723

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the Plaintiff had the requisite standing to bring a paternity action pursuant to N.D.C.C. 14-20-37.
II. Whether the Trial Court's findings are clearly erroneous.
A. Whether the Trial Court's findings of facts in awarding grandparent visitation are supported by the evidence.
B. Whether the Trial Court based its decision on an improper view of law when it improperly relied on a presumption in favor or grandparent visitation.
III. Whether N.D.C.C. 14-09-05.1, entitled "Grandparental rights of visitation to unmarried minor child-mediation or arbitration", is properly used to order the establishment of a relationship between infant child and stranger, albeit grandparent, or was it intended to be limited to preserving an already established relationship between grandparent and grandchild and to do otherwise is an improper imposition on a parent's right to parent.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether appellee had standing to bring a grandparent visitation action pursuant to the plain language of North Dakota Century Code Section 14-09-05.1.
2. If standing for a paternity action is needed in a grandparent visitation action, whether the district court cured the defect, if any, through North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
3. If standing for a paternity action is needed in a grandparent visitation action, whether the amended complaint relates back to the date the action commenced.
4. If standing for a paternity action is needed in a grandparent visitation action, whether a lack of standing at the commencement of the action is harmless error.
5. If standing for a paternity action is needed in a grandparent visitation action, whether appellee's amended complaint must be seen as a supplemental pleading.
6. If standing for a paternity action is needed in a grandparent visitation action, whether appellee's personal representative status must "relate back" to the date the action commenced.
7. Whether the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous.
8. Whether the district court properly interpreted and applied N.D.C.C.  14-09-05.1.

Add Docket 20100046 RSS Add Docket 20100046 RSS

Docket entries:
102/08/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/04/2010
202/08/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/04/2010
302/24/2010 TRANSCRIPTS DATED July 2, 2009 & December 15, 2009 & C.O.S.
402/26/2010 DISK-TRA (7/2/09 & 12/15/09) e-mailed.
503/01/2010 Amended Notice of Appeal
603/09/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (Electronic)
703/11/2010 MOTION FOR Remand. RspDue: 03/16/2010
803/12/2010 Response Filed
903/12/2010 MOTION FOR leave to file Rule 60b motion and remand
1003/12/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Appellee's motion for remand). Granted
1103/12/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (leave for Rule 60b motion & remand). Granted
1203/12/2010 ORDER OF REMAND
1303/12/2010 Order of Remand Sent to Parties
1403/19/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED APRIL 9, 2009 & JANUARY 4, 2010, & C.O.S.
1503/19/2010 DISK-TRA (4/9/09 & 1/4/10). E-MAILED
1604/07/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (electronic)
1704/13/2010 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (104-132 electronic)
1804/26/2010 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (133-135 electronic)
1904/27/2010 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (136-137 electronic)
2004/28/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED APRIL 7, 2010, & C.O.S. (the orginal is filed in the Record on Appeal)
2104/30/2010 DISK-tra (4/7/10) e-mailed
2304/28/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF,with attached Addendum (see corrected ATB filed 5-13-10)
2504/29/2010 Corrected pages 22 and 27 for ATB
2605/05/2010 Table of Contents for ATA
2705/13/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF, with attached Addendum (corrected)
2805/13/2010 DISK - corrected ATB (e-mailed)
2905/19/2010 Response Filed To Motion for Stay
3005/19/2010 EFILED RESPONSE
3105/26/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot. for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal). Denied
3206/14/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)
3306/14/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)
3406/14/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)
3506/14/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)
3606/16/2010 Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #19682)
3706/17/2010 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD
3806/17/2010 Received 7 copies of AEA from CSD
3906/28/2010 REPLY BRIEF (E-FILED)
4006/28/2010 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)
4107/02/2010 Received $25 e-filing surcharge for RYB (Receipt #19700).
4207/07/2010 Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating.
4409/01/2010 APPEARANCES: Stephen R. Dawson; Greg W. Liebl
4509/01/2010 ARGUED: Dawson; Liebl
4709/23/2010 MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL (Renewed). RspDue: 10/04/2010
4809/23/2010 E-FILED MOTION
4910/04/2010 Response Filed - Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Renewed Motion for Stay
5010/04/2010 EFILED RESPONSE
5110/06/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied
5310/19/2010 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
5410/19/2010 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
5510/20/2010 Judgment Sent to Parties
5611/16/2010 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/01/2014