R.F. v. M.M.
|
| 20100046 |
R.F., individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate
of E.F., deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
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
|
| Counsel: |
|
| Term: |
09/2010 Argument: 09/01/2010 02:45pm
|
| ND cite: |
2010 ND 195
|
| NW cite: |
789 N.W.2d 723
Listen to recording of oral argument
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
|
| 1 | | 02/08/2010 | |
NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/04/2010 |
| 2 | | 02/08/2010 | |
ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/04/2010 |
| 3 | | 02/24/2010 | |
TRANSCRIPTS DATED July 2, 2009 & December 15, 2009 & C.O.S. |
| 4 | | 02/26/2010 | |
DISK-TRA (7/2/09 & 12/15/09) e-mailed. |
| 5 | | 03/01/2010 | |
Amended Notice of Appeal |
| 6 | | 03/09/2010 | |
RECORD ON APPEAL (Electronic) |
| 7 | | 03/11/2010 | |
MOTION FOR Remand. RspDue: 03/16/2010 |
| 8 | | 03/12/2010 | |
Response Filed |
| 9 | | 03/12/2010 | |
MOTION FOR leave to file Rule 60b motion and remand |
| 10 | | 03/12/2010 | |
ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Appellee's motion for remand). Granted |
| 11 | | 03/12/2010 | |
ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (leave for Rule 60b motion & remand). Granted |
| 12 | | 03/12/2010 | |
ORDER OF REMAND |
| 13 | | 03/12/2010 | |
Order of Remand Sent to Parties |
| 14 | | 03/19/2010 | |
TRANSCRIPT DATED APRIL 9, 2009 & JANUARY 4, 2010, & C.O.S. |
| 15 | | 03/19/2010 | |
DISK-TRA (4/9/09 & 1/4/10). E-MAILED |
| 16 | | 04/07/2010 | |
RECORD ON APPEAL (electronic) |
| 17 | | 04/13/2010 | |
Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (104-132 electronic) |
| 18 | | 04/26/2010 | |
Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (133-135 electronic) |
| 19 | | 04/27/2010 | |
Supplemental Clerk's Certificate (136-137 electronic) |
| 20 | | 04/28/2010 | |
TRANSCRIPT DATED APRIL 7, 2010, & C.O.S. (the orginal is filed in the Record on Appeal) |
| 21 | | 04/30/2010 | |
DISK-tra (4/7/10) e-mailed |
| 22 | | 05/05/2010 | |
MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL & BRIEF IN SUPPORT. RspDue: 05/19/2010 |
| 23 | | 04/28/2010 | |
APPELLANT BRIEF,with attached Addendum (see corrected ATB filed 5-13-10) |
| 24 | | 04/28/2010 | |
APPELLEE APPENDIX |
| 25 | | 04/29/2010 | |
Corrected pages 22 and 27 for ATB |
| 26 | | 05/05/2010 | |
Table of Contents for ATA |
| 27 | | 05/13/2010 | |
APPELLANT BRIEF, with attached Addendum (corrected) |
| 28 | | 05/13/2010 | |
DISK - corrected ATB (e-mailed) |
| 29 | | 05/19/2010 | |
Response Filed To Motion for Stay |
| 30 | | 05/19/2010 | |
EFILED RESPONSE |
| 31 | | 05/26/2010 | |
ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot. for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal). Denied |
| 32 | | 06/14/2010 | |
APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed) |
| 33 | | 06/14/2010 | |
E-FILED BRIEF (AEB) |
| 34 | | 06/14/2010 | |
APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed) |
| 35 | | 06/14/2010 | |
E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA) |
| 36 | | 06/16/2010 | |
Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #19682) |
| 37 | | 06/17/2010 | |
Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD |
| 38 | | 06/17/2010 | |
Received 7 copies of AEA from CSD |
| 39 | | 06/28/2010 | |
REPLY BRIEF (E-FILED) |
| 40 | | 06/28/2010 | |
E-FILED BRIEF (RYB) |
| 41 | | 07/02/2010 | |
Received $25 e-filing surcharge for RYB (Receipt #19700). |
| 42 | | 07/07/2010 | |
Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating. |
| 43 | | 07/28/2010 | |
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT |
| 44 | | 09/01/2010 | |
APPEARANCES: Stephen R. Dawson; Greg W. Liebl |
| 45 | | 09/01/2010 | |
ARGUED: Dawson; Liebl |
| 46 | | 09/01/2010 | |
ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST |
| 47 | | 09/23/2010 | |
MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL (Renewed). RspDue: 10/04/2010 |
| 48 | | 09/23/2010 | |
E-FILED MOTION |
| 49 | | 10/04/2010 | |
Response Filed - Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Renewed Motion for Stay |
| 50 | | 10/04/2010 | |
EFILED RESPONSE |
| 51 | | 10/06/2010 | |
ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied |
| 52 | | 10/19/2010 | |
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED |
| 53 | | 10/19/2010 | |
UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V. |
| 54 | | 10/19/2010 | |
Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellee |
| 55 | | 10/20/2010 | |
Judgment Sent to Parties |
| 56 | | 11/16/2010 | |
MANDATE |
| 57 | | 11/22/2010 | |
RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE |