Opinions

State, et al. v. Carrier 2025 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240210
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Child support determinations involve questions of law, which are fully reviewable, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and in some areas, matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

The party seeking to modify a child support obligation has the burden to provide appropriate and reliable information to support a modification of child support.

Issues are not adequately briefed when an appealing party fails to cite any supporting authority, and this Court will not consider them on appeal.

Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone 2025 ND 40
Docket No.: 20240143
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Whether an obligor can control the receipt of trust funds is not relevant to whether the funds are income for child support purposes. A court calculating a parent's child support obligation is concerned with whether the parent receives income from the trust.

The child support amount is presumed to be the correct amount, but can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence if it is in the best interest of the children and one of the criteria in N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. The court must make specific findings demonstrating why the guideline amount has been rebutted.

A court may order the obligor maintain a life insurance policy as reasonable security for child support payments.

A party moving to amend a judgment under Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., bears a heavy burden of showing sufficient grounds for disturbing the final judgment.

State v. McDermott 2025 ND 39
Docket No.: 20240150
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment with a firearm is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Peterka v. Janda, et al. 2025 ND 38
Docket No.: 20240122
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment denying and dismissing a complaint for declaratory judgment is affirmed.

A district court's findings that an individual lacked capacity to enter into the option to purchase does not preclude a finding that the individual was of unsound mind, rendering the option to purchase voidable under N.D.C.C. § 1401-02. The standard to determine whether an individual lacks capacity to enter into a contract is distinct from the standard whether a contract or other conveyance is voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02.

Gackle v. NDDOT 2025 ND 37
Docket No.: 20240247
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend driving privileges for 365 days for driving under the influence of alcohol is reversed.

The North Dakota Department of Transportation fails to show an Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered when an officer's deviation from the approved method was such that the Court cannot say, without expert advice, that the officer's deviation from the approved method did not affect the test results.

When the deviation from the approved method could not have affected the reliability or accuracy of the test results, the deviation does not render the test results inadmissible.

The approved method provides that, upon receiving a result of "Difference Too Great," an "operator shall wait another 20 minutes and ensure the subject has had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test." We interpret "before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test" consistent with the language of the approved method as a whole to require an officer to wait 20 minutes before beginning a subsequent test sequence.

A breath test record showing a period of time less than 20 minutes between test sequences cannot prima facie establish the test was administered in accordance with the approved method because the approved method expressly requires an operator to wait 20 minutes before repeating the test sequence.

Failure to wait 20 minutes before beginning the second testing sequence is the type of deviation from the approved method which may have affected the scientific accuracy or reliability of the test. Absent expert testimony on the likely effect of this deviation, the Department fails to show the test was fairly administered.

Guardianship and Conservatorship of G.I.C. 2025 ND 36
Docket No.: 20240146
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order directing distribution of trust assets is reversed.

When a trust agreement provides for specific devises of land but that land is sold prior to the trust's termination, each beneficiary is entitled to a share of the remaining proceeds of the sale of the land proportionate to the value of each beneficiary's specific devises.

Gravity Oilfield Services v. Valence Natural Gas Solutions 2025 ND 35
Docket No.: 20240184
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order granting summary judgment and judgment, and award of attorney's fees are reversed.

State v. Gum 2025 ND 34
Docket No.: 20240331
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a motion for return of seized property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Estate of Connolly 2025 ND 33
Docket No.: 20240230
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Walden v. Walden 2025 ND 32
Docket No.: 20240131
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: District courts must consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the needs of the spouse seeking support, and the ability of the other spouse to pay when determining whether to award spousal support. A party who fails to provide evidence of net income waives any argument that he or she did not have the ability to pay spousal support.

A district court considers the Ruff-Fischer factors when distributing marital property. The court must consider the length of a marriage in determining an equitable division of the marital estate under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. In a short-term marriage, the court may return to the parties what they brought into the marriage, but the division of property and debt must be equitable.

The guiding principle for an award of attorney's fees is one party's need and the other party's ability to pay. The district court may also consider whether a party's actions have unreasonably increased the time and efforts spent on the dispute.