Discover Bank v. Bolinske, Sr.
- Discover Bank, Plaintiff and Appellee
Robert V. Bolinske Sr., Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : DEBTOR/CREDITOR
- Appeal From
Case No. 2019-CV-03966
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Pamela Ann Nesvig
Parties' Statement of Issues
I. Did the District Court err in entering default judgment when Bolinske had prior thereto made an appearance?
II. Did the District Court commit reversible err by (1) failing to make a proper legal analysis of the Motion to Vacate, (2) discussing absolutely no facts, (3) citing nor analyzing any applicable law, (4) failing to set forth any findings of fact or valid conclusions of law and, (5) failing to prepare and issue any meaningful memorandum decision?
III. Did the District Court err in failing to give Bolinske relief from the Judgment based upon Bolinske's mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect?
IV. Did the District Court err in failing to give defendant the requested hearing on the Motion to Vacate?
1. Does leaving a voice message at the attorney's office constitute an appearance?
2. Did the district court act within its discretion in denying the motion to vacate when Bolinske failed to put forward a meritorious defense?
Robert V. Bolinske appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him.
Discover Bank sued Bolinske for overdue credit card debt. Discover Bank filed an affidavit of no answer with the district court along with a proposed order for a default judgment. Judgment was entered and notice of entry of judgment was served on Bolinske. Bolinske moved to vacate the judgment. The district court denied his motion.
Bolinske argues the default judgment should be vacated because he made a telephone appearance to opposing counsel prior to the entry of the judgment and he was entitled to notice prior to entry of the judgment. Additionally, Bolinske argues he is entitled to relief from the judgment because of his mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. Further, Bolinske argues the district court erred by failing to give him a hearing on his motion to vacate and by failing to discuss facts or analyze applicable law when it denied his motion.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||03/23/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 03/23/2020|
|2||03/24/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|3||03/24/2020||Notice served on Robert V. Bolinske Sr and Amanda M. Lee|
|4||05/01/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED APRIL 30, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 1-36)|
|5||05/06/2020||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION : Jensen, Jon J.|
|6||05/05/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||05/07/2020||ACTION BY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE CROTHERS - Granted : 06/11/2020|
|10||06/22/2020||MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT CORRECTIONS TO APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX|
|11||06/22/2020||MOT. FOR EXT. OF TIME TO SUBMIT CORRECTIONS TO APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX (2nd submission)|
|12||06/23/2020||NO ACTION TAKEN (ext. of time to submit corrections 2nd request)|
|13||06/23/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 07/02/2020|
|14||06/30/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections for ATB & ATA|
|15||07/06/2020||MOTION TO STRIKE BY APPELLEE - RspDue : 08/20/2020|
|16||07/01/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of ATB & 4 copies of ATA from CSD|
|17||07/08/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (insufficient motion - no good cause shown)|
|18||07/09/2020||NO ACTION TAKEN (brief timely filed)|
|20||07/13/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB back from CSD|
|21||07/20/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF AND TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO STRIKE|
|22||07/21/2020||ACTION BY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE CROTHERS - Granted : 08/20/2020|
|23||07/23/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED: NO REQUESTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT|
|24||08/19/2020||SITTING WITH THE COURT : Schmalenberger, Allan L.|
|26||08/27/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to RYB|
|27||08/31/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of RYB back from CSD|
|28||09/02/2020||Motion to Strike To Be Considered With the Merits|
|29||09/16/2020||APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(1)(c)|
|30||09/16/2020||ARGUED: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)(1)(c)|