Opinions

Toppenberg v. Toppenberg, et al. 2025 ND 121
Docket No.: 20250017
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: According to N.D.C.C. § 14-09-08.4(4) and N.D. Admin. Code. § 75-0204.1-07(7), party seeking modification of a child support order that was entered at least one year before the filing of the motion has the burden of proving that the existing level of support does not conform to the guidelines and that the change in employment was not made for the purpose of reducing the obligor's child support obligation.

A proper finding of net income is essential to determine the correct amount of child support under the child support guidelines. Net income is the total gross annual income less certain amounts available for deduction under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(6). Gross income is defined as "income from any source, in any form," except for some specific exclusions under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(4)(a).

Sanda v. Sanda 2025 ND 120
Docket No.: 20240352
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: When a divorce is granted, the district court shall make an equitable distribution of the property and debts of the parties. All property held by the parties, whether it is held individually or jointly, is deemed marital property, and the court must determine the property's total value before making an equitable distribution. This includes separate property, or property exempt from being included as marital property, that has been commingled or placed into a joint bank account.

If the parties do not mutually agree upon a valuation date, the valuation date for marital property and debt is sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date. If there is a substantial change in value of an asset or debt between the date of valuation and the date of trial, the district court may adjust the valuation of that asset or debt as necessary to effect an equitable distribution and shall make specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable.

A property distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, but the district court must explain a substantial disparity. The property's origin may be considered when equitably dividing the estate, along with economic fault and dissipation of assets.

A premarital agreement is a contract that is interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the parties' mutual intent at the time of contracting, usually in relation to the disposition of property upon divorce.

We do not reweigh conflicts in the evidence, and we give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

Interest of J.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250036
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of A.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250039
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of L.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250037
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of A.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250038
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Reciprocal Discipline of Odegaard 2025 ND 118
Docket No.: 20250115
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Reciprocal
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer disbarred

Anderson v. Anderson 2025 ND 117
Docket No.: 20240343
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A divorce judgment entered after a bench trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Roth, et al. v. Meyer, et al. 2025 ND 116
Docket No.: 20240324
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms.

When a finding requires proof by clear and convincing evidence in the trial court, our review on appeal applies the clearly erroneous standard under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) in the context of the required standard of proof.

The burden of proving adverse possession rests with the person alleging it and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Beyond the elevated burden of clear and convincing evidence, "special rigor" is required to prove adverse possession against a family member.

Adverse possession requires possession hostile to the true owner—meaning possession that is inconsistent with the owner's rights and gives notice of adverse claims.

For purposes of establishing adverse possession, a claimant's subjective belief he owned the property is not relevant.

Because the notice requirement is a fundamental part of an adverse possession claim, a claimant cannot establish a prima facie case by relying solely on his testimony as to his subjective hostile intent. He must introduce evidence that such intent was objectively made manifest by his observable words or actions.

The absence of an agreement does not establish hostility for an adverse possession claim. Whether an agreement existed is relevant, but the presence or absence of an agreement is not the essential finding.

Recorded documents cannot establish adverse possession because they are not evidence of hostile acts for purposes of adverse possession.

Unjust enrichment requires (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment; and (5) an absence of a remedy provided by law.

State v. Gramkow 2025 ND 115
Docket No.: 20250034
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).