Opinions

Axvig, et al. v. Czajkowski, et al. 2025 ND 135
Docket No.: 20250004
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court misinterpreted a contract for deed by allowing a party to proceed with a cancellation action without first providing the other party notice of the default and time to cure the default as required by the contract.

A remedy is the appropriate legal form of relief by which that remediable right ay be enforced. It is the form of relief by which the right is enforced and is not part of the cause of action.

Cancellation of the contract for deed is one remedy, which may be achieved by alternative methods: 1) a statutory cancellation under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-18; or 2) a court action.

Cancellation of a contract for deed by action is an action in equity, and the court must base its decision on equitable principles. In the absence of express terms specifying notice and redemption, an action for cancellation has a presumption that notice and redemption are appropriate and require specific findings weighing the equity of a notice and redemption period.

State v. Berkley 2025 ND 134
Docket No.: 20240351
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: We interpret statutes to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and do not adopt a construction which would render part of the statute mere surplusage. Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to determine the Legislature's intended meaning.

If, after applying our statutory and doctrinal canons, the plain or ordinary language suggests two plausible and rational meanings, then the statute is ambiguous. When a statute is ambiguous, we may consider extrinsic aids, including legislative history, along with the language of the statute, to understand the Legislature's intended meaning.

Section 12.1-32-15(2), N.D.C.C., allows the court to deviate from the registration for "crimes against children" if the court first finds the individual has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child, and the individual did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct in the commission of the offense, unless the offense is described in section 12.1-29-02, or the offense is described in section 12.1-18-01 or 12.1-18-02 and the person is not the parent of the victim. The phrase "and the person is not the parent of the victim" applies to section 12.1-18-01 and 12.1-18-02, but not section 12.1-29-02.

State v. Solomon 2025 ND 133
Docket No.: 20250021
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under the speedy trial statute, trials must begin within 90 days of invoking this right, unless the court finds "good cause" for delay. Courts consider four factors when determining good cause: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.

Even if a district court doesn't explicitly discuss these factors, we will uphold the court's decision if applying the factors would reach the same result.

It is unnecessary to seek judicial notice of matters outside the record to rebut allegations contrary to the existing record.

WSI v. Boechler, et al. 2025 ND 132
Docket No.: 20240165
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1, a president of a corporation is not personally liable for penalties imposed due to a failure to file payroll reports.

North Dakota Century Code § 65-04-26.1(3) requires Workforce Safety and Insurance to make an administrative determination regarding personal liability. A decision regarding personal liability under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1 applies prospectively thus establishing personal liability for future sums owed by the corporation.

Bang, et al. v. Continental Resources 2025 ND 131
Docket No.: 20240239
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Under a usual oil and gas lease, the lessee, in developing the leased premises, is entitled to use of the land reasonably necessary in producing the oil. Even though the surface rights of the lessee may arise by implication, it is important to note that lessee's rights are primarily governed by the specific grant of rights in the lease.

A district court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence at trial, which will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

An appellate court's conclusion a trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain evidence in one case does not mean another trial court abused its discretion by not admitting similar evidence in a different case.

The district court has discretion to determine an appropriate sanction for a party's failure to supplement interrogatories and may exclude expert testimony that is beyond the scope of a party's responses to interrogatories.

The district court is not required to give instructions in the specific language requested by a party if the instructions given fairly and adequately inform the jury of the law.

State v. Kennedy 2025 ND 130
Docket No.: 20240346
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A party can invite error during voir dire.

It is the responsibility of the parties, not the district court, to object to evidence a party believes is inadmissible.

A party may intentionally not object to potentially inadmissible evidence for numerous strategic reasons. The court ruling on the admissibility of evidence when not invited to by a party can disrupt a party's trial presentation and sabotage a party's trial strategy.

Attorneys have an obligation to ensure that the arguments they present are factually and legally supported.

Whether to substitute appointed counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.

Carvalho v. Carvalho, et al. 2025 ND 129
Docket No.: 20250086
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court must perform an adequate analysis for an appellate court to determine the basis for its decision.

Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.

Bazile v. State 2025 ND 128
Docket No.: 20250015
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order denying an amended application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

An application for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1)(e) is reviewed as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.

Section § 29-32.1-01 ("Remedy - To whom available - Conditions) limits the availability of postconviction relief to those grounds listed under subsection 1. An applicant for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 must base his application on the grounds provided under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1).

Res judicata bars relitigation of the same claim or claims that were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.

Interest of B.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250159
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.

Interest of I.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250160
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.