Kvande v . Thorson . 2020 ND 186 . Filed 8-27-20 .
In this equity case , the Supreme Court held that laches is the delay in enforcing a person ’ s rights that disadvantages another , and a party asserting laches must prove they were so prejudiced during the delay that they cannot be restored to the status quo . However , the Court stated that equitable estoppel cannot be used to create an enforceable agreement between the parties .
Oversen , et . al . v . Jaeger . 2020 ND 190 . Filed 9-4-20 .
The Court held that the North Dakota Secretary of State does not have a duty to certify a new nomination and place the new nominee ’ s name on the general election ballot as a candidate for a statewide executive branch office when a vacancy on the ballot occurs after the primary election , if the vacancy did not occur as a result of one of the conditions listed in N . D . C . C . § 16.1- 11-18 ( 6 ). The only subsection of that section of the statute that petitioner argued applied was subsection ( d ). The Supreme Court stated because the prospective candidate was never qualified to serve , due to a failure to meet state residency requirements , the candidate could not cease “ to be qualified to serve ,” and therefore , the Secretary was not required to place the name on the ballot . The petition for writ of mandamus was thus denied .
if the spousal support award was rehabilitative . The Court stated spousal support is rehabilitative when it is to restore a spouse to independent economic status or to equalize the burden of the divorce by increasing that spouse ’ s earning capacity . On the other hand , a substantial disparity between the spouses ’ incomes that cannot be readily adjusted by property division or rehabilitative support may support an award of indefinite , permanent support to maintain the disadvantaged spouse , i . e ., non-rehabilitative spousal support .
Because the district court found that spousal support was necessary so that the receiving spouse would not have to consume her property settlement to supplement her income , that did not support a finding that the spousal support award was rehabilitative . Thus , the district court order denying the payor spouse ’ s motion to terminate spousal support was reversed and remanded .
Sadek , et . al . v . Weber , et . al . 2020 ND 194 . Filed 9-15-20 .
In this tort action , the Supreme Court stated one who willfully deceives another with intent to induce that person to alter their position to that person ’ s injury or risk is liable for any damage which that person thereby suffers . The Court said while there must be a false representation of a material fact that either exists in the present or has existed in the past , a mere expression of an opinion in the nature of a prophecy as to the happening or the non-happening of a future event is not actionable as a tort of deceit .
O ’ Keeffe v . O ’ Keeffe . 2020 ND 201 . Filed 9-16-20 .
In this post-divorce action , the North Dakota Supreme Court stated under N . D . C . C . § 14-05-24.1 ( 4 ) spousal support may not be terminated for the recipient party ’ s habitual cohabitation with another , under subsection ( 3 ) of the same statute ,
FALL 2020 21