Bilger v . Bilger . 2021 ND 144 . Filed 8-5-21 .
In the never-contentious / always harmonious world of matrimonial litigation , the Court held that while the United States military servicemember may apply to stay an action against him , including an action for a legal separation by his spouse in this case , the defendant servicemember failed to apply for a stay and assert that his military duty affected his ability to appear and defend the action . The Court , therefore , found that the defendant forfeited the available protections of the applicable federal statute and instead voluntary submitted to the jurisdiction of the district court . The Court found the Servicemember ’ s Civil Relief Act applied , however , the defendant servicemember failed to properly invoke it . Therefore , the judgment against him for a legal separation was affirmed .
Bahmiller v . North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance . 2021 ND 147 . Filed 8-5-21 .
The plaintiff began having symptoms of numbness , etc ., in both of his wrists and hands beginning in 2013 . He had surgery for those conditions in 2019 . Plaintiff filed a claim to WSI for benefits in 2019 . WSI denied it as untimely because it was not filed within one year of the injury . On appeal , the Supreme Court noted a claimant is not entitled to receive benefits if they fail to file a written claim within the specified time under the statute . A reasonable person standard is used to determine the date of an injury . A reasonable person is an ordinary reasonable lay person , not a person learned in medicine . To have a compensable injury , a claimant must know or have reason to know of the seriousness of his or her condition and that the injury is work related . Because the claimant did not have surgery for his work-related conditions until 2019 , the Supreme Court stated the weight of the evidence did not support a finding that a reasonable person in claimant ’ s position knew or should have known he suffered a compensable work injury prior to April 2019 when he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome that eventually required surgery . The Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment reversing the ALJ Order sustaining WSI ’ s denial of benefits to claimant .
Dubois v . State . 2021 ND 153 . Filed 8-19-21 .
In this appeal from an order denying defendant ’ s application for post-conviction relief , the Supreme Court held , among other things , that counsel ’ s failure to raise a novel or groundbreaking legal claim does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel , nor does counsel ’ s failure to raise a “ novel argument ” render his performance constitutionally ineffective . Additionally , a counsel ’ s decision to not raise an issue unsupported by precedent also did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel .
Schulz v . Helmers . 2021 ND 158 . Filed 8-19-21 .
This landmark decision involved a farm lease and a fire that destroyed farm buildings owned by the plaintiff and leased to the defendant . The issue involved was the appropriate measure of damages governing plaintiff ’ s breach of contract claim against the defendant for causing a fire that destroyed the buildings leased to defendant . At the time of the fire , the farm buildings were old and had greatly depreciated . Plaintiff wanted defendant to have to pay for new replacement buildings , which would have resulted in a very substantial windfall to plaintiff considering the age and value of the buildings at the time of the fire loss . The Supreme Court rejected plaintiff ’ s claim and held that the proper measure of damages for a breach of contract claim related to the failure to repair property under a lease agreement was either the cost of repair ( in this case replacement ) or diminution in value of the property at the time of the loss , whichever is lower .
The Supreme Court noted that even though the District Court applied N . D . C . C . § 32-03-09.1 ( the tort measure of damages ) to this breach of contract claim , the District Court used it in error because the statute only applies to a breach of an obligation not arising from contract . Because the claim in this case was for breach of contract , N . D . C . C . § 32-03-09 is the applicable damages statute . However , the Supreme Court stated that the district court ’ s misapplication of the law was harmless error because diminution in value is the proper measure and the result is the same whether N . D . C . C . § 32-03- 09.1 or the rule in Three Aces Properties , LLC v . United Rentals , ( N . Am .), Inc ., 2020 ND 258 ( a breach of contract claim case ), was applied . The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that it will not set aside a correct result merely because the district court ’ s reasoning was incorrect , if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning . Schmidt , et . al . v . City of Minot , et . al . 2016 ND 175 .
Accordingly , the Supreme Court upheld and affirmed the district court ’ s judgment in favor of the defendant . Because the cost of repairing the plaintiff ’ s property was significantly higher than its diminution of value from the fire loss , repairing the property was economically impracticable and awarding damages based on the cost of repairs ( in reality , to replace with new ) would result in the landlord receiving a windfall by having new , modern buildings constructed at the expense of the defendant , where old and significantly depreciated buildings stood immediately prior to the fire . Diminution in value was the correct measure of damages in this breach of contract / property damage case . The judgment for defendant was affirmed .
Hartman , et . al . v . Grager . 2021 ND 160 . Filed 9-2-21 .
In this dispute over a sale of a farmstead and farmland , the Supreme Court stated before a court may set aside a transaction on the ground of mental incapacity , the party attacking the validity of the transaction has the burden to prove that the grantor , at the time of the transaction , was so weak mentally as not to be able to comprehend and understand the nature and effect of the transaction . The Court also noted a valid agreement for the sale of real property must show who the contracting parties are , intelligently identify the subject matter involved , express the consideration , and disclose the terms and conditions upon which the contract is entered into . All things that in law or usage are considered as incidental to a contract or as necessary to carry it into effect are implied therefrom , unless some of them are mentioned expressly in the contract .
22 THE GAVEL