Opinions

McKenzie Co. Social Service Bd., et al. v. C.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2001 ND 151
Docket No.: 20010047
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Paternity
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A judgment entered without personal or subject matter jurisdiction is void.
Determining the parentage of a child of Indian tribal members is intimately connected with the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.
Affirmative relief is not available under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv).

State v. Wiest 2001 ND 150
Docket No.: 20000306
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Without an objection to testimony at trial, appellate review is limited to determining if its admission constituted obvious error affecting substantial rights.
A trial court has broad discretion in evidentiary matters, and its decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be overturned unless the court abused its discretion.

Higgins v. Trauger (Consolidated w/20010074) 2001 ND 149
Docket No.: 20010073
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: When a failure to timely redeem from a tax sale is attributable in part to the neglect of the redemptioner, and not wholly to a mistake made by the county auditor, equitable principles do not apply to extend the redemption period.
A person who owes a duty to pay taxes on property and who fails to pay the taxes, cannot in collusion with others purchase tax sale certificates for the property to strengthen the person's title.

Stoppler v. Stoppler 2001 ND 148
Docket No.: 20000330
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: An award of custody is a finding of fact, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
A trial court's determination on visitation is treated as a finding of fact.
To make an equitable distribution of marital property, the trial court must first determine the net worth of the parties' property.
A court cannot consider property division and spousal support separately in a vacuum, but must examine those issues together.

Heinz v. Heinz 2001 ND 147
Docket No.: 20000298
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A lengthy marriage supports an equal division of all marital assets.
Spousal support is appropriate for a disadvantaged spouse who has foregone opportunities or lost advantages as a consequence of the marriage and who has contributed during the marriage to the supporting spouse's increased earning capacity.
Spousal support payments must be included in computing monthly net income for child support purposes.

State v. Shafer-Imhoff 2001 ND 146
Docket No.: 20000350
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Application of N.D.C.C. 1-02-17 to eliminate the punishment of imprisonment for a criminal statute that was repealed after the criminal act was committed but before conviction, is not an invalid pardon.
A trial court is not required to instruct the jury in the exact language sought by a party if the court's instructions adequately and correctly inform the jury of the applicable law.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, we will not disregard the letter of the statute under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, because the legislative intent is presumed clear from the face of the statute.
After the jury has advised the court of an impasse, the court may employ more than one N.D.R.Ct. 6.9 option without being advised again of an impasse.

Farmers Alliance Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hulstrand Construction, Inc. 2001 ND 145
Docket No.: 20010054
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Absent concerted action, there is no third-party claim for contribution among tortfeasors under North Dakota law.
When the parties to a contract agree to modify or alter the terms of their original contract, the new agreement ordinarily must be supported by new or additional consideration.
When the parties to a contract sign a subsequent agreement which is intended to merely clarify or explain the terms of the original contract, no new or additional consideration is necessary.

Eggl v. Letvin Equipment Co. 2001 ND 144
Docket No.: 20000318
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A trial court's determinations on questions of breach of warranty are treated as findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Whether machinery is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was purchased, and whether a contract of purchase has been rescinded within a reasonable time or not, are questions of fact.
Questions of nonconformity with a contract, substantial impairment of value, and timely notice of revocation are questions of fact.
The time for discovering a breach of warranty and what is a reasonable time for revocation of acceptance are fact questions.
A buyer's right of revocation is not conditioned upon whether it is the seller or the manufacturer that is responsible for the nonconformity.

Interest of N.H., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2001 ND 143
Docket No.: 20000278
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Prognostic evidence is a basis for reasonable predictions about future behavior when determining whether a child's deprivation is likely to continue or will not be remedied. Prognostic evidence includes reports and opinions of professionals.
Lack of parental cooperation with social service agencies is insufficient to establish deprivation but is pertinent to whether deprivation will continue.

Interest of H.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2001 ND 142
Docket No.: 20010197
Filing Date: 8/29/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A district court's involuntary commitment order is reviewed under a more probing clearly erroneous standard.
Even though mentally ill, engaging in imprudent business practices is not enough to find a respondent presents a substantial likelihood of dangerousness to property and is, therefore, a person requiring treatment.