Opinions

SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA, et al. 2024 ND 88
Docket No.: 20230195
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is disapproved.

District courts retain authority to revisit interlocutory orders until entry of final judgment.

Under the doctrine of merger, the provisions of an executory contract merge into an instrument conveying real property. Absent fraud or mistake, the conveying instrument alone governs determination of the rights of the parties to the transaction.

Recordation of a granting instrument is not necessary to effect a conveyance. Nor is it necessary for a plaintiff to present the original conveying instrument to prevail in quiet title action. In a quiet title action ownership may be established through evidence that a conveying instrument was delivered but subsequently lost.
The equitable defense of laches may be available when a party delays enforcing his rights and a change in conditions during the delay results in prejudice to an adverse party.

To have standing to litigate an issue a party must have suffered some injury from the putatively illegal action and the party must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights and interests of third parties.

Parties may contract to a fee recovery standard that is either looser or stricter than statutory standards.

State v. Williams 2024 ND 87
Docket No.: 20230300
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

Glaum v. State 2024 ND 86
Docket No.: 20230236
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Rule 58 of the North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary action or proceeding, including any appeal from an administrative agency, any review of a referee order by the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court. Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents filed in criminal actions.

An appeal from a vexatious litigant pre-filing order must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the order. When there is no service of notice of entry of the order or evidence of actual knowledge of entry, the time for filing a notice of appeal does not begin to run.

A presiding judge may determine a person is a vexatious litigant based on the finding that in the immediately preceding seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as a self-represented party at least three litigations that have been finally determined adversely to that person.

If a response to the proposed pre-filing order is filed, the presiding judge may, in the judge's discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order.

An appellant is precluded from challenging an order that was not appealed from in the notice of appeal and raising an issue for the first time on appeal.

Harris v. Oasis Petroleum, et al. 2024 ND 85
Docket No.: 20230279
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The question of who is a prevailing party under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06 is a question of law, subject to de novo review.
A prevailing party in a tort action must at least prevail on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. There may not be a single prevailing party when opposing parties each prevail on some issues.
Under North Dakota's comparative fault statute, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02, in the case of a contributorily negligent plaintiff, any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. However, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 does not provide for any diminution in the costs and disbursements to be allowed to a recovering plaintiff.
A district court has the discretion to award a prevailing party costs and disbursements under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06, without reduction by the party's percentage of fault. The law does not require a court to reduce costs awarded to the prevailing party based on its percentage of fault.

Field v. Field, et al. 2024 ND 84
Docket No.: 20230405
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Under Rule 30(a), N.D.R.App.P., a party's references to evidence in any document on appeal must cite to items in the record. This Court does not consider documents that are not in the certified record. After an initial custody decision has been made, parenting time modifications are governed by N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2) and by standards set forth in caselaw. A parenting plan must include a provision on decision making responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-30(2)(a), and that responsibility must be allocated in the best interests of the child, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-31(2). A district court's decision on parenting time and decision making responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Interest of Skorick 2024 ND 83
Docket No.: 20230330
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior.

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230382
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230383
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230384
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382-20230384) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230385
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).