Carol Ronning Kapsner

The case involved the annual review of A.M.'s involuntary commitment to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous individual, following his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for gross sexual imposition. The district court ordered an extension of the commitment after hearing testimony from a psychologist about A.M.'s ongoing diagnoses, including paraphilia not otherwise specified (nonconsent), continued inappropriate behaviors towards a staff member, lack of progress in treatment, and risk of future predatory conduct. A.M. appealed, arguing the findings that he was a sexually dangerous individual and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior were clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the order, holding that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.

criminal law

In this divorce case, Darnell Boeckel sought to modify an existing custody order and divide marital property after Jocelyn Boeckel relocated with the children. The district court awarded primary physical custody to Darnell Boeckel based on findings about the children's environment and best interests, divided the marital estate while including one party's inheritance but excluding the other's, and ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the property valuation and distribution as well as the denial of attorney fees, finding no abuse of discretion or error in those rulings. The court reversed and remanded on the custody issue, however, because the district court failed to make explicit findings on the rebuttable statutory presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence. The decision turned on application of North Dakota statutes governing custody modifications within two years of the original order and equitable division of marital assets.

family lawproperty

The case involved C.H., a 38-year-old man diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, who was subject to a petition for involuntary commitment filed by his sister citing fears of harm to family members and his own deterioration without treatment. The district court issued orders for hospitalization at the North Dakota State Hospital and involuntary medication, which C.H. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders, holding that the findings that C.H. required treatment and that hospitalization was the least restrictive appropriate option were not clearly erroneous, based on psychiatric testimony regarding his manic behavior, threats, risk of harm to others, and inability to meet basic needs. The court also upheld the medication order after determining that statutory factors were met, including clinical appropriateness, necessity, and that benefits outweighed risks, given C.H.'s history of responding to medication and refusal to take it voluntarily.

healthcare

The case involved the State of North Dakota appealing a district court order suppressing financial records obtained by Workforce Safety and Insurance via subpoenas to credit unions during an investigation into alleged workforce safety fraud by Wayne Emil, Jr. and accomplice charges against his wife Kim Emil related to unreported work and income from Lady Bug Lawn Service. The defendants argued the subpoenas did not cover the Lady Bug Lawn Service account, leading the district court to suppress the records. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the prosecutor's statements filed with the notice of appeal failed to sufficiently explain the relevance of the suppressed evidence as required by N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5), instead merely paraphrasing the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over title to two quarters of North Dakota farmland between Larry Holbach and his four children following the death of his ex-wife Judith. After their 1983 divorce, the stipulated judgment specified that Larry and Judith would hold the land as joint tenants, with provisions for farming rights, income division, and an agreement to later devise the property to the children, though no such separate agreement was ever executed; a 2001 deed confirmed the joint tenancy, and Judith's 2002 will attempted to pass her interest to the children. The district court granted Larry summary judgment quieting title solely in him as surviving joint tenant. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Larry's title remained subject to the conditions and restrictions outlined in the divorce judgment, which the parties had not altered by any subsequent agreement.

family lawproperty

The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Tony Eggl's will after his death, specifically how the residuary estate should be distributed when all of his siblings had predeceased him. Fourteen nieces and nephews petitioned the court, arguing for equal per capita shares among them, while one niece contended the estate should first be divided into shares based on the four siblings and then distributed per capita within each sibling's line. The district court found the will unambiguous and ruled that the language directing distribution to "their children, per capita" meant the entire residuary estate should be shared equally among all nieces and nephews in that generation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of Article VIII, including the use of plural terms and the explicit "per capita" instruction, demonstrated an intent for equal division by the number of takers rather than by family lines.

property

The case involved an appeal by E.H. (Eric) from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his child D.H. (David), who had been adjudicated deprived and placed in foster care after removal from a prior guardian. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the termination, holding that the juvenile court's findings—that the causes of David's deprivation were likely to continue and that David would probably suffer serious harm—were not clearly erroneous. The court reasoned that evidence of Eric's repeated incarcerations, positive drug tests, failure to complete evaluations or attend meetings and visits, and lack of consistent cooperation with social services demonstrated he could not provide a stable environment, and separation from David's half-sister would likely cause emotional harm.

family law

In Eberle v. Eberle, a divorce case, Heidi Eberle appealed a district court judgment that distributed marital property, set parenting time for the couple's children, and denied her certain costs from a prior appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's equitable distribution of the marital estate—awarding the family farm and most assets to John Eberle with a $150,000 cash payment to Heidi Eberle—based on the farm's origins as premarital property, the goal of keeping the farm intact, and the parties' conduct during the marriage. The court also affirmed the detailed parenting schedule granting Heidi primary residential responsibility, finding it served the children's best interests and addressed implementation issues from prior arrangements. However, the court reversed the denial of $1,816 in transcript and filing costs from the earlier appeal and remanded for their imposition.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned post-divorce disputes between Aimee and James Martinson over modification of visitation rights after allegations of sexual abuse by the father, along with requests for attorney fees and allocation of future counseling costs for the children. The district court partially awarded attorney fees related to a Minnesota protective order, denied other fee requests, vacated an ex parte fee award, ordered the parties to equally share future therapy expenses, and adopted a stipulation on visitation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the equal sharing of counseling costs as consistent with the original divorce judgment but reversed the denial of additional attorney fees and remanded for further proceedings on unresolved financial issues including nanny and expert expenses.

family law

In Heinle v. Heinle, a divorce proceeding involving one minor child, the district court awarded Angie Heinle primary physical custody, $400 monthly rehabilitative spousal support for one year, $10,000 in attorney fees (including Rule 11 sanctions), and calculated Travis Heinle's child support at $604 per month based on extrapolated 2008 income. Travis Heinle appealed the custody determination, support awards, fees, and support calculation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the custody award, holding that the district court properly considered the child's best interests under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 despite disagreeing with the custody investigator, and upheld the attorney fees based on income disparity and sanctions for submitting inadmissible settlement evidence. It reversed the spousal support and child support rulings, finding the district court failed to make required findings on support factors and on whether 2007 income was an unreliable indicator of future earnings before extrapolating income.

family law

In Botner v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation District, a father sued the parks district after his five-year-old son fell from a high diving board at a public pool and suffered serious injuries, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe equipment, adequate supervision, and warnings. The district court granted summary judgment to the parks district, finding no evidence of actionable negligence. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the district breached its duties to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and to provide adequate supervision by lifeguards. The court reasoned that disputes over the adequacy of guardrails and the lifeguards' response to the child's running on the board precluded summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved a divorced couple seeking modification of their child support obligations and primary residential responsibility for their children after their daughter moved to live with her father in 2008. The district court granted the father primary responsibility for one child, adjusted the parties' support payments, and denied the mother's request for attorney fees. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the child support calculation, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to comply with the child support guidelines in determining the parties' obligations and the effective date of modification. The court affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding no abuse of discretion because the mother did not establish need or that the father unreasonably increased litigation time.

family lawprocedure

In Sheets v. Farhart Law Firm, attorney Jeffrey Sheets sued Farhart Law Firm and Moody Farhart for additional compensation under a 2004 employment agreement covering fee credits and expense splits after his association with the firm ended, while the defendants counterclaimed for repayment of two promissory notes totaling $13,000 plus interest. The district court determined after a bench trial that Sheets was entitled to $11,982.18 in additional pay but offset that amount against the notes, entering judgment for the defendants in the net amount of $6,338.21; it had earlier granted summary judgment finding no partnership was formed. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court's factual findings on compensation were not clearly erroneous because they were supported by evidence such as witness testimony on fee allocations, expense sharing, and credibility determinations. The court declined to disturb the offset or the resulting judgment for the defendants.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Roland Riemers was issued a non-criminal municipal traffic citation for following too closely in Grand Forks, subject to a $20 fine under city code. After pleading not guilty in municipal court, he sought transfer to district court for a jury trial under state statute, but the municipal judge denied the motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court granted a supervisory writ and held that the state constitution guarantees Riemers the right to a jury trial for the citation. The court reasoned that this right applies even to minor, non-criminal ordinance violations and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit by Jacqueline and Randall Schmidt against Gateway Community Fellowship and the owner of Gateway Mall, after Jacqueline injured her ankle by stepping in a hole in a parking lot while attending an outdoor automotive show and skateboarding exhibition sponsored by the church. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding they were protected by recreational use immunity under North Dakota law because Schmidt had entered the premises for recreational purposes without paying a fee. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Schmidt's entry was for recreational purposes and whether any charge was imposed for access to the premises. The court noted disputes over the event's nature, including contest fees and sponsorships, as well as the applicability of the immunity statute to the facts presented.

torts & liability

In State v. Fickert, the defendant appealed his criminal judgment after pleading guilty to gross sexual imposition, arguing that the district court violated administrative rules governing his appearance via interactive video network (IVN) from a remote location and failed to establish a sufficient factual basis for the plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Fickert did not preserve his claims by objecting at the hearing or moving to withdraw the plea, so review was limited to obvious error, which he failed to show. The court reasoned that the factual basis was adequate because the state's recitation described acts meeting the elements of the offense and Fickert ultimately admitted to committing them on one occasion after the court clarified details such as location. The decision focused on compliance with procedural requirements for IVN appearances and acceptance of guilty pleas under state rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Citizens State Bank seeking to enforce a broad commercial guaranty signed by Myron Symington for debts of his son's business, Westwood Manufacturing, after the business defaulted on two promissory notes. Myron Symington claimed he had been misled by a bank officer into believing he was only guaranteeing a small advance for one load of lumber and resisted summary judgment on grounds including fraud, mistake, and lack of consideration. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the bank for over $213,000, ruling the guaranty clear and unambiguous, and certified the judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) while leaving a related fraudulent-transfer claim pending. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the certification but reversed the summary judgment, holding that the district court erred in granting it, and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a father's motion to modify custody of his minor child, who had been placed in the mother's sole custody under a 2006 amended judgment. The father argued that the mother's relationships with individuals convicted of child molestation and other crimes, her assistance in one partner's unlawful flight, and the child's excessive school absences created an environment that endangered the child and warranted a change in custody under North Dakota law. The district court denied the motion after hearings, finding that modification was not in the child's best interests and that the child's environment with the mother did not endanger her physical or emotional health. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the district court correctly applied the statutory standards for custody modification and that its factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

family law

The case involved a dispute over a claim by the North Dakota Department of Human Services against the estate of Mary Ann Fisk for $56,312.35 in medical assistance benefits paid to her deceased husband, plus issues of interest, funeral expenses, and administrative costs. The probate court declared the estate insolvent and ordered payment of $29,565.70 to the Department after deducting expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's approval of reasonable personal representative and attorney fees as estate administration costs but reversed its ruling that the full funeral expenses of the recipient's spouse were allowable, holding instead that N.D.C.C. § 50-24.1-07(1)(a) limits such expenses to $3,000. It also remanded for further proceedings because the record was inadequate to determine the validity and traceability of the Department's claim to assets in the estate under the presumption of spousal interest in N.D.C.C. § 50-24.1-07(5).

healthcarepropertyprocedure

In this case, Home of Economy sued Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) seeking damages and an injunction to reopen a grade crossing on BNSF's spur line that provided access to its property and parking lot, claiming the crossing had become a public road by prescription under state law due to long-term public use and that it held an easement by estoppel based on BNSF representations. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the claims, finding insufficient evidence of either a prescriptive public road or an easement by estoppel. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly assigned the burden of proof to Home of Economy and was not clearly erroneous in determining that the stipulated facts, witness testimony about maintenance and use, and lack of representations by BNSF failed to establish the required elements for either claim.

propertybusiness & regulatory