North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Michael J. Morley
Author’s Note and Caveat: The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Because the following contain the
author’s summary of the decisions, the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value, if any, in a given case.
Knudson v. Knudson, 2018 ND 199
In this divorce, spousal support, and child support case, the Supreme
Court concluded the district court’s decision denying plaintiff ’s
request for rehabilitative spousal support was not clearly erroneous
and the district court did not misapply the law in calculating
plaintiff ’s child support obligation.
Regarding rehabilitative spousal support, the Supreme Court
concluded the plaintiff ’s sexual orientation, by itself, is not an
appropriate factor to consider in deciding whether to award spousal
support, and that her failure to disclose her sexual identity to her
husband before their marriage should not preclude an award of
spousal support to the non-disclosing spouse. However, because
the district court found the non-disclosing spouse engaged in
an ongoing extra-marital affair, with another woman, during the
marriage, and the affair was the proximate cause of the divorce, the
affair constituted non-economic fault that was appropriate for the
district court to consider in deciding whether or not to award spousal
support to the at-fault spouse.
The plaintiff was also ordered by the district court to pay child
support for one of the party's children. The Supreme Court upheld
the district court’s child support order, concluding an oil and gas lease
bonus plaintiff received could be included in her self-employment
income for purposes of determining her child support obligation,
even if it was non-recurring income and beyond her control, because
the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines definition of income
is very broad and is intended to include any form of payment to the
obligor that is not specifically excluded by the guidelines. Because
the oil and gas lease bonus was not specifically excluded by the
guidelines, that income was properly considered in determining
plaintiff ’s child support obligation. The district court’s judgment was
affirmed.
State v. Peltier, 2018 ND 170, 915 N.W.2d 115
This case involves a child support judgment and the question of
who, if anyone, has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to decide a
child support obligation to an Indian child, namely a state district
court or a tribal court. The Supreme Court determined, on the record
before it, the defendant, as a non-member Indian living on the Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation, did not meet his burden of showing
the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a
child support proceeding. The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded
the state district court had concurrent jurisdiction with the tribal
court and did not err in concluding that state court jurisdiction over
child support in the case would not undermine the authority of the
Turtle Mountain Tribal Court over reservation affairs, nor would it
infringe on the right of the tribe to govern itself. It appears the key
factor in this case was that neither the defendant nor the child were
members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, even
though they resided within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.
Ramirez v. Walmart, 2018 ND 179,
915 N.W.2d 674
The plaintiff had been previously employed by a Walmart store in
Jamestown, N.D. Walmart terminated his employment. Several
months after the termination, plaintiff sued Walmart under
N.D.C.C. § 34-01-20, which prohibits retaliatory discharges by
employers. Plaintiff claimed he was discharged from his employment
in retaliation for complaining to supervisors about other employees’
“unfair” terminations.
Walmart filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), arguing the plaintiff failed to plead any facts establishing
that his complaints about “serial dismissals” constituted protected
activity as defined in the statute. The district court granted the
motion and dismissed the plaintiff ’s action without prejudice.
The Supreme Court said, although an order dismissing a complaint
without prejudice is generally not appealable, because the statute of
limitations on the plaintiff ’s claim expired by the time the district
court rendered its decision, thus foreclosing any further action by
plaintiff, the order was appealable.
Moreover, to the merits of the plaintiff ’s appeal, the Supreme Court
Michael J. Morley received his juris doctor with distinction and was admitted to the Order of the Coif upon
graduation from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1979. That same year, he was admitted to
practice law in North Dakota State Courts and the United States District Courts for the District of North Dakota.
In 1981, he was admitted in the Minnesota State Courts and the United State District Court for the District of
Minnesota, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He is a member of the State Bar
Associations of North Dakota and Minnesota and is currently president and shareholder of Morley Law Firm, Ltd.,
in Grand Forks.
22
THE GAVEL