Sailer v. Sailer
Docket Info
- Title
- Curtis L. Sailer, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Sandra K. Sailer, Defendant and Appellant - Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other)
- Appeal From
-
Case No. 06-C-02214
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Thomas J. Schneider
Highlight
A premarital agreement is not enforceable if it was not executed voluntarily; however, the party against whom enforcement is sought has the burden to prove it was not executed voluntarily.
In a premarital agreement, parties may contract to keep their property separate. If one spouse uses his or her earnings to support the other, such fact does not, alone, indicate he or she voluntarily waived the enforceability of the premarital agreement.
Section 14-03.1-06(2), N.D.C.C., does not preclude enforcement of a premarital agreement if a party does not prove that enforcement of the premarital agreement would cause him or her to be eligible for public assistance.
When a trial court discusses whether a premarital agreement is clearly unconscionable, its analysis requires complete factual findings about the parties' relative property values, the other resources, and forseeable needs of the spouse asserting the premarital agreement is unconscionable.
A trial court is required to determine the total value of the marital estate in order to make an equitable division of property.
Counsel
| Party | Type | Name |
|---|---|---|
| APPELLEE | PRIVATE PRACTICE | Gregory Ian Runge - 04724 |
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
| Seq. # | Filing Date | Description | Attachment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 05/19/2008 | NOTICE OF APPEAL : 05/16/2008 | |
| 2 | 05/19/2008 | ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 05/16/2008 | |
| 3 | 05/28/2008 | RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (and Request for Payment - Jane Hoekstra Ct. Reporter) : 07/05/2008 | |
| 4 | 06/30/2008 | MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT | |
| 5 | 06/30/2008 | ACTION BY TRIAL COURT - Granted : 08/13/2008 | |
| 6 | 08/13/2008 | TRANSCRIPTS DATED December 20, 2007 (v.1) and December 21, 2007 (v.2) | |
| 7 | 08/13/2008 | DISK (TRA 12-20-07 & 12-21-07) (e-mailed) | |
| 8 | 08/19/2008 | RECORD ON APPEAL & Exhibits (Not rec'd: Pls. Exhs.5 & 6 of Entry #32; Pls. Exh.25 of Entry No. 80; | |
| 9 | 08/19/2008 | and Entry No. 51 -- Steno Notes) | |
| 10 | 09/15/2008 | MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed) | |
| 11 | 09/15/2008 | E-FILED MOTION (Mot/Ext/ATB) | |
| 12 | 09/15/2008 | ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK - Granted : 10/22/2008 | |
| 13 | 10/20/2008 | MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD (FAXED) | |
| 14 | 10/20/2008 | E-FILED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD (FAXED) | |
| 15 | 10/21/2008 | NO ACTION TAKEN (MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD). | |
| 16 | 10/22/2008 | APPELLANT BRIEF | View |
| 17 | 10/22/2008 | E-FILED BRIEF - ATB | |
| 18 | 10/22/2008 | APPELLANT APPENDIX | |
| 19 | 10/22/2008 | E-FILED APPENDIX - ATA | |
| 20 | 10/23/2008 | Received $25 Surcharge for Appellant Brief (Receipt 18289) | |
| 21 | 10/24/2008 | Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating. | |
| 22 | 10/24/2008 | Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating. | |
| 23 | 10/27/2008 | Corrected TOC & pages 83 through 89 for ATA | |
| 24 | 11/24/2008 | APPELLEE BRIEF | View |
| 25 | 11/24/2008 | DISK - AEB (CD-ROM) | |
| 26 | 01/22/2009 | APPEARANCES: Kent M. Morrow; Gregory I. Runge | |
| 27 | 01/22/2009 | ARGUED:Morrow;Runge | |
| 28 | 01/22/2009 | ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST | |
| 29 | 04/30/2009 | DISPOSITION (AND REMANDED) | |
| 30 | 04/30/2009 | SPLIT OPINION : Kapsner, Carol Ronning | View |
| 31 | 04/30/2009 | (DISSENTING) : Maring, Mary Muehlen | |
| 32 | 04/30/2009 | Neither party have and recover costs and disbursements on this appeal under Rule 39, N.D.R.App.P. | |
| 33 | 05/04/2009 | Judgment Mailed to Parties | |
| 34 | 05/27/2009 | MANDATE | |
| 35 | 06/02/2009 | RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE | |
| 36 | 01/10/2020 | EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed |