J. Philip Johnson

In Fuson v. Schaible, the ex-wife sought a money judgment for child support arrearages accrued between 1977 and 1981 under a 1976 divorce decree, after the children were adopted by her new spouse in 1981, which terminated further support obligations. The district court awarded $8,450 plus interest via a motion procedure and rejected the ex-husband's statute of limitations defense because it was not raised in his written response. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a motion is a proper procedure to reduce pre-1987 arrearages to judgment under the court's continuing jurisdiction, but the statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15 applies to the original divorce judgment with the period beginning when payments were due and unpaid, subject to tolling provisions for minority that do not extend the claim here.

family lawprocedure

This case was a divorce proceeding in which Joseph Catlin appealed a North Dakota district court judgment that awarded permanent custody of the couple's son to Shannon Catlin (now Klein). The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, concluding that North Dakota had subject matter and personal jurisdiction because it was the child's home state, that denial of Joseph's requested stay under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act did not prejudice the final custody determination, and that the trial court's custody findings based on psychological evidence were not clearly erroneous. The court rejected Joseph's challenges to jurisdiction and visitation rulings, holding that service and the interim custody orders were valid.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Loren Otto challenging the probate of his father Walter Otto's will on grounds including undue influence by his sister Carol Lashman, who had moved in to care for their terminally ill father and received the bulk of the estate under the will. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carol, dismissing the challenge after finding that the will's attestation created a presumption of due execution that could only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Loren's evidence—including medical records, an attorney's affidavit, and his own statements—raised genuine issues of material fact about undue influence and that the trial court had applied an unduly heavy burden of proof at the summary judgment stage instead of viewing evidence favorably to the non-movant.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved Mildred Sellie, who was injured when struck by a luggage cart operated by a bus driver employed by Senior Citizens Recreation, Inc. (SCR), during a group tour. SCR's insurer had become insolvent, so the North Dakota Insurance Guaranty Association (NDIGA) assumed responsibility but denied coverage under a policy exclusion for bodily injury from a mechanical device (other than a hand truck) not attached to the covered auto. Sellie settled with SCR for $128,000 via a stipulated judgment to be satisfied only from insurance proceeds, then sued NDIGA for a declaration that the policy provided coverage and that the judgment was enforceable. The trial court dismissed the action, finding no coverage because the device was not a hand truck. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the stipulated judgment was valid and enforceable against NDIGA because there was no evidence of fraud or collusion and the settlement amount was reasonable under the analysis from Miller v. Shugart.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the scope of coverage under a commercial liability insurance policy issued by Hartford to Columbia Paint Company for claims arising from an explosion that severely injured two painters using Columbia's product in North Dakota. The painters and their families brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the policy's per-occurrence limit of $1 million applied separately to each injured party or whether a single $1 million aggregate limit covered all claims. The district court applied North Dakota law and ruled there were multiple occurrences, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, determining that Washington law governed the policy interpretation because of the stronger contacts with the formation and administration of the insurance contract. Applying Washington precedent, the court held that the explosion constituted a single occurrence stemming from one proximate cause, so the aggregate limit controlled regardless of the number of claimants or theories of liability.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a commercial dispute where Cooperative Power Association (CPA) purchased a large step-up transformer from Westinghouse for use in an electrical generating station. After a bushing component failed and damaged the transformer, CPA sought recovery in federal court under negligence and strict product liability theories for the resulting economic losses, which were limited to damage to the product itself. The North Dakota Supreme Court, answering a certified question from the federal district court, held that a manufacturer in a commercial transaction cannot be held liable in negligence or strict products liability for economic loss caused by a component failure that damages only the machine. The court's reasoning followed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., concluding that contract and warranty law, rather than tort law, governs such claims when a defective product injures only itself in a commercial setting.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory