Mathisen, et al. v. Becker-Johner2023 ND 241 Docket No.: 20230263 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: REAL PROPERTY Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A brief is deficient if it fails to raise a legal argument, including the authorities on which it relies. A district court order and judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).
Williams v. Williams, et al.2023 ND 240 Docket No.: 20230201 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other) Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:Reopening the record is an evidentiary issue subject to the abuse of discretion standard.
If the obligor fails to provide reliable information regarding his gross income, and that information cannot be reasonably obtained from other sources, the court must impute income and apply the method providing the greatest amount.
District courts must use a source demonstrating statewide average earnings to determine the obligor’s income for child support calculations if the obligor fails to provide sufficient reliable information for determining the obligor’s income.
Whether to award attorney’s fees in conjunction with a discovery violation is generally within the discretion of the district court.
Grengs v. Grengs, et al.2023 ND 239 Docket No.: 20230105 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:A principal that allows an ostensible agent act with apparent authority may be bound by the agent’s actions.
A principal may expressly or impliedly ratify an ostensible agent’s acts by conduct or failure to timely disavow the acts.
A third party is required to exercise diligence and prudence in determining whether an agent acted for a principal.
N.D.C.C. § 35-03-05 provides a standard mortgage form.
Interest of J.M.M.2023 ND 238 Docket No.: 20230348 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A juvenile court order terminating a mother’s parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Highlight:Once a contract has been entered into, mutual assent of the contracting parties is essential for any modification of the contract.
To establish a modification, the party asserting the modification must show that there was an agreement of the parties on all essential terms of the contract modification, and that the parties intended the new terms to alter the contract.
State v. Serdahl2023 ND 236 Docket No.: 20230204 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
Powell, et al. v. Statoil Oil & Gas2023 ND 235 Docket No.: 20230098 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: OIL, GAS AND MINERALS Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:The obligation to pay royalties under an oil and gas lease is a contract contained in a conveyance or instrument affecting title to real property within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). This ten-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for untimely payment of royalties under an oil and gas lease.
If an operator fails to notify a mineral owner of a title dispute affecting the owner’s distribution of royalties and fails to pay royalties within 150 days after oil or gas produced under the lease is marketed, and cancellation of the lease is not sought, the operator must pay interest on the unpaid royalties at 18% per annum until paid.
Ebel, et al. v. Engelhart, et al.2023 ND 234 Docket No.: 20230116 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: CONTRACTS Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:A district court judgment is reversed because the court misapplied the law by applying the statute of frauds when it was not specifically pled under N.D.R.Civ.P. 8.
Rule 8(c), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires the statute of frauds to be specifically pled as an affirmative defense.
State v. Hamilton2023 ND 233 Docket No.: 20230052 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:When a defendant pleads guilty on open and unconditional plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge the rejection of a plea agreement.
During sentencing, failure to preserve an objection precludes a later assertion unless a defendant establishes obvious error. Obvious error is exercised only with extreme caution.
Interest of Wedmore2023 ND 232 Docket No.: 20230150 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:An appeal to determine if a person remains a sexually dangerous individual must be taken within 30 days of an entry of an order denying discharge.
State v. Bearce2023 ND 231 Docket No.: 20230120 Filing Date: 12/15/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A district court does not err when reducing a defendant’s sentence within the 120-day period mandated by Rule 35(b), N.D.R.Crim.P.
It is mandatory under Rule 35(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., that the sentencing judge, whenever reducing a sentence as permitted by Rule 35, give his reasons for the reduction.
This Court’s power on appeal is limited by N.D.C.C. § 29-28-35. When the State appeals, this Court cannot reverse an order of the district court if doing so would increase the defendant’s sentence.
Neither the district court nor the State may invoke section 25 rights on behalf of a victim and when no individual exercises the victim’s right to participate in any post-judgment processes and procedures, a court does not err when it issues an order on a post-judgment without the victim’s consideration.
Highlight:Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel precludes litigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the prior case, even if such issues are subsequently presented as part of a different claim. Collateral estoppel requires a final judgment on the merits.
An aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body’s decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision. Landowners are not foreclosed from challenging whether a drain improvement project is authorized by law in defending against an eminent domain action.
A water resource district may not accumulate a fund exceeding the six-year maximum maintenance levy or obligate the district for costs beyond the maximum maintenance levy without the approval of the majority of the landowners.
Before property can be taken it must appear that the use to which it is to be applied is a use authorized by law. The public uses authorized by N.D.C.C. § 32-15-02(3) carry the additional requirement that the mode of apportioning and collecting the costs of such improvement shall be such as may be provided in the statutes by which the same may be authorized.
