Search Tips

Hoffarth v. Hoffarth

Docket No. 20200129
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:30 PM

Docket Info

Title
Jacqueline Marie Hoffarth, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
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
Oral Argument 9/23/2020

Parties' Statement of Issues

  • Appellant

    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?

  • Appellee 1

    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.


Summary

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.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
06/15/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
07/15/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
07/30/2020 REPLY BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Patti Jo Jensen - 04328
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Timothy Charles Lamb - 06820
APPELLEE PRIVATE PRACTICE Justine Soraya Hesselbart - 09017

(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)
12 06/15/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
13 06/15/2020 Oral Argument Request by Appellant
14 06/15/2020 APPELLANT APPENDIX
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
17 07/15/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
18 07/15/2020 APPELLEE APPENDIX
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
25 07/30/2020 REPLY BRIEF View
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