Sall v. Sall
Duane C. Sall, Plaintiff and Appellee
Caryn J. Sall, n/k/a Caryn J. Weber, Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Douglas R. Herman
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||09/2011  Argument: 09/12/2011|
|ND cite:||2011 ND 202|
804 N.W.2d 378
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Issue 1. Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 1a: Caryn's Motion for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 1b: Caryn's Motion for Contempt of Court Denied.
Issue 2: Caryn's Motion to Compel Delivery of Documents Denied.
Issue 3: Caryn's Motion for Tax Claims for Minor Children Denied.
Issue 4: Caryn's Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Issue 5: Order Nor Written According to Rulings to Benefit Plaintiff.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Should Weber's Appeal be Denied?
A. Are Weber's Arguments Without Merit?
B. Does Weber's Brief Conform to Rule 28 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure?
C. Is the Appendix Prepared by Weber in Violation of Rule 30(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure?
II. Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request that Sall be Found in Contempt Regarding COBRA?
III. Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion When It Denied Portions of Weber's Requests as Stale?
IV. Is the Order Dated January 11, 2011, Clearly Erroneous?
A. Did the District Court Did Err in Hearing and Granting Sall's Motion dated November 11, 2010?
B. Is the District Court's Order Denying Weber's Request for Allocation of the Tax Exemptions Clearly Erroneous?
C. Was the Order Properly Entered?
V. Did the District Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request that Sall be Found in Contempt Regarding Children's Expenses?
VI. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion Regarding Evidentiary Issues?
VII. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Weber's Request for Financial Information Regarding the Parties' Minor Children?
VIII. Did the Trial Court Err Regarding Due Process Issues?
IX. Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion When It Addressed the Credibility of the Witnesses?
|Add Docket 20100360 RSS|
|1||11/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/03/2010|
|2||11/04/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 11/03/2010|
|3||11/17/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED August 16, 2010, & C.O.S. (original part of Record on Appeal)|
|4||11/17/2010 DISK-tra (8/16/10) e-mailed|
|5||12/01/2010 MOTION FOR Temporary Remand|
|6||12/01/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted|
|7||12/01/2010 ORDER OF REMAND|
|8||12/01/2010 Order/Judgment Sent to Parties|
|9||12/21/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|10||12/21/2010 NO ACTION TAKEN (MAT)|
|11||01/03/2011 DISK-AMENDED TRA DATED 8.16.10 (E-MAILED)|
|12||01/04/2011 AMENDED TRANSCRIPT DATED August 16, 2010, & C.O.S. (original part of Record on Appeal)|
|13||01/26/2011 Refiled Record on Appeal after remand (Electronic)|
|14||01/26/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte) (reset due to remand)|
|15||01/26/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (sua sponte) (reset due to remand). Granted: 03/07/2011|
|16||02/24/2011 2nd NOA (filed in trial court on 2-22-11)|
|17||02/24/2011 2nd ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 02/22/2011|
|18||03/01/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|19||03/01/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (ATB extended to 30 days after tra is filed, approximately 5/13/11). Granted: 05/13/2011|
|20||03/21/2011 1st Supplemental Electronic Clerk's Certificate on Appeal (entry nos. 449 - 453)|
|21||03/17/2011 Notice from Kristen Erickson that preparation of the transcript is suspended for failure to pay|
|22||03/17/2011 Reset due date of the Appellant's Brief - transcript preparation suspended|
|23||03/17/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (reset due date of Appellant's Brief - transcript preparation suspended). Granted: 04/13/2011|
|24||04/05/2011 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 12-14-10 and 12-30-10 & C.O.S.|
|25||04/05/2011 Reset ATB due date, last of TRA's were timely filed.|
|26||04/05/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (reset ATB due date, last of TRA's were timely filed).. Granted: 05/05/2011|
|27||05/05/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|28||05/05/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|29||05/05/2011 DISK-ATB (CD-ROM)|
|30||06/06/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|31||06/06/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|32||06/06/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX (E-filed)|
|33||06/06/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)|
|34||06/08/2011 Received surcharges for AEB & AEA (Receipt Nos. 20348 & 20349)|
|35||06/09/2011 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|36||06/09/2011 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD|
|37||07/19/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|38||07/27/2011 REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT BY APPELLEE|
|39||07/27/2011 E-FILED MOTION|
|40||07/29/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Granted|
|41||09/12/2011 APPEARANCES: Caryn J. Weber, pro se/Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f)|
|42||09/12/2011 ARGUED: Weber|
|43||09/12/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|44||10/18/2011 DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|45||10/18/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|46||10/18/2011 CONCUR IN THE RESULT: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/RES|
|47||10/18/2011 Neither party have and recover from costs and disbursements on this appeal.|
|48||10/19/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|49||10/31/2011 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|51||11/15/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing). Denied|
|53||11/29/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|54||02/21/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed and placed on docket|
|55||04/19/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied|
|56||06/14/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Rehearing was denied|