Northern Excavating v. Sisters of Mary of the Presentation
Northern Excavating Co., Inc., Plaintiff, Appellee
Sisters of Mary of the Presentation
Long Term Care, d/b/a Ave Maria Village, Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge Jay A. Schmitz
|Nature of Action:||Contracts|
|Term:||12/2011  Argument: 12/08/2011 9:30am|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 78|
815 N.W.2d 280
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. Did the District Court err in applying N.D. Cent. Code 35-27-24.1, such that it awarded Appellant only 10% of its attorneys fees?
II. Did the District Court err in concluding Appellee was the "prevailing party" entitled to pursuant to 28-26-06?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A.N.D.C.C. 35-27-24.1 should be harmonized with the entire construction lien statutes in Chapter 35-27.
B.The trial court applied an incorrect standard in concluding that Northern Excavating's lien was "inaccurate".
C.Alternatively, the discretion lies with the trial court to determine what "reasonable attorney's fees' are due as a result of an inaccurate lien.
|Add Docket 20110209 RSS|
|1||07/20/2011||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 07/19/2011|
|2||07/29/2011||NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL|
|3||08/26/2011||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|4||08/26/2011||E-FILED MOTION (MAT)|
|5||08/26/2011||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 09/06/2011|
|8||09/06/2011||DISK - ATB|
|9||09/20/2011||ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL (entry nos. 1 - 89)|
|12||10/10/2011||Received 8 copies of corrected title page & proof of service.|
|13||10/21/2011||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|14||10/21/2011||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 10/28/2011|
|17||11/16/2011||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|18||12/08/2011||APPEARANCES: Michael L. Gust; Kip M. Kaler|
|19||12/08/2011||ARGUED: Michael L. Gust; Kip M. Kaler|
|20||12/08/2011||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|21||04/10/2012||DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT|
|22||04/10/2012||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|23||04/10/2012||CONCUR IN THE RESULT: Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/RES|
|24||04/10/2012||Neither party have and recover costs and disbursements in this appeal|
|25||04/10/2012||Judgment Sent to Parties|