Hoffarth v. Hoffarth
- Jacqueline Marie Hoffarth, Plaintiff and Appellee
Jeremy Glen Hoffarth, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other)
- Appeal From
Case No. 2018-DM-00706
Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
M. Jason McCarthy
Parties' Statement of Issues
1) Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a hearing in this case and denying a motion for relief from judgment?
2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously by not reviewing the verbal stipulation in this case for its equitable division of the marital estate where no Rule 8.3, N.D.R.Ct., disclosure of property and debt listing was completed by the parties or filed with court?
3) Did the district court overlook other aspects of the divorce decree, as a matter of law, such as allocation of the tax credit for the three minor children and identifying personal property of the 20-year marriage for proper distribution to the parties?
Issue 1: Whether the district court properly denied Jeremy’s Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure and his request for a hearing.
Yes, the district court’s determination that Jeremy’s request for a hearing was untimely and therefore, its denial of Jeremy’s Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure was proper because Jeremy failed to meet his burden, it was a product of proper view of the applicable law, it was supported by the evidence and a mistake in result has not been made.
Issue 2: Whether the district court properly reviewed the verbal stipulation in this case for its equitable division of the marital estate.
Yes, the district court properly reviewed the verbal stipulation in this case for its equitable division of the marital estate and therefore did not act arbitrarily and capriciously.
Issue 3: Whether the district court properly decided all of the provisions of the parties’ divorce decree as a matter of law including the allocation of the tax credit for the parties’ three (3) minor children and identified the personal property of the twenty-year (20) marriage for proper distribution to the parties.
Yes, the district court properly decided all of the provisions of the parties’ divorce decree as a matter of law including the allocation of the tax credit for the parties’ three (3) minor children, the identification of personal property of the twenty-year (20) marriage for proper distribution to the parties.
Jeremy Hoffarth appeals from a district court’s denial of his motion for relief from a divorce judgment and the court’s subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider.
Jacqueline Hoffarth and Jeremy Hoffarth entered an oral stipulated divorce agreement in open court. The district court adopted their stipulation and entered a divorce judgment. Jeremy Hoffarth moved for relief from the judgment arguing the case should be reopened because his attorney provided him inadequate representation and the parties never provided a listing of their properties and debts. The court denied his motion. He filed a motion to reconsider, which the court also denied.
On appeal, Jeremy Hoffarth argues the court should have reopened the case because the parties did not provide a listing of their properties and debts and the court did not ensure the parties’ stipulation was equitable.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||04/28/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 04/28/2020|
|2||04/28/2020||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (not proper)|
|3||05/01/2020||Received $125 filing fee|
|4||05/04/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||05/04/2020||Notice served on Timothy C. Lamb and Patti J. Jensen|
|6||05/06/2020||AMENDED ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT|
|7||05/08/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 14, 2018|
|8||05/08/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED MAY 6, 2019|
|9||05/08/2020||Certificate of Service for Transcripts|
|10||05/12/2020||Rec'd non-substantive correction to 5/6/19 transcript (date)|
|11||05/29/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MAY 28, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 1-138)|
|13||06/15/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|15||06/19/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to ATA|
|16||06/25/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of ATB and 4 copies of ATA back from CSD|
|19||07/15/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|20||07/20/2020||Rec'd amended c.o.s. for AEB & AEA|
|21||07/24/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB & 4 copies of AEA from CSD|
|22||07/27/2020||Rec'd non-compliant reply brief (length)|
|23||07/28/2020||MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL PAGES FOR REPLY BRIEF|
|24||07/29/2020||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Denied|
|26||08/06/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of RYB back from CSD|
|27||08/13/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|28||09/23/2020||APPEARANCES: Timothy C. Lamb; Justine S. Hesselbart|
|29||09/23/2020||ARGUED: Timothy C. Lamb; Justine S. Hesselbart|
|30||09/23/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|