State v . Landrus , 2022 ND 107 . Filed 5 / 26 / 22 .
Landrus was charged with aggravated assault under N . D . C . C . § 12.1-17-02 ( 1 )( a ). However , during the trial , the jury instructions listed the elements for aggravated assault under N . D . C . C . § 12.1- 17-02 ( 1 )( c ). Although both subdivisions relate to aggravated assault , they have different essential elements . Subdivision ( a ) states a person is guilty if the person , “ willfully causes serious bodily injury to another human being .” Subdivision ( c ) states a person is guilty if the person “ causes bodily injury or substantial bodily injury to another human being while attempting to inflict serious bodily injury on any human being .” Neither side objected to the jury instructions .
Because neither side objected , the Supreme Court reviewed the instructions under the obvious error standard . An obvious error is ( 1 ) an error ; ( 2 ) that is plain ; and ( 3 ) the error affects the defendant ’ s substantial rights . The Court found instructing the jury on the wrong subdivision of law is an obvious deviation from the applicable legal rule . Due process protects a criminal defendant from conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the charged offense . Because the jury was instructed on the wrong subdivision , it did not find every element of the crime as charged . This affected Landrus ’ substantial rights and was obvious error . The Court believed failing to correct the error would seriously affect the fairness , integrity , and public reputation of criminal proceedings and reversed and remanded for a new trial .
Toman Eng ' g Co . v . Koch Constr ., Inc ., 2022 ND 104 . Filed 5 / 26 / 22 .
The Supreme Court held the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Koch Construction , Inc .’ s , and the other appellants (“ Koch ”), counterclaim against Toman Engineering Company (“ Toman ”) as a sanction for spoliation of evidence . Toman provided engineering services , as a subcontractor , to Koch in designing a stormwater management system for a residential development project in Dickinson . Toman sued Koch to collect unpaid amounts for these engineering services . Koch counterclaimed , alleging Toman failed to perform and negligently performed its engineering services related to a detention pond in the development subject of the parties ’ claims .
Toman moved for sanctions for spoilation of evidence , arguing Koch willfully modified the detention pond before giving notice Toman improperly designed the pond . Toman argued it was unable to have an independent expert inspect the pond as it existed prior to modification . The district court dismissed Koch ’ s counterclaim as a sanction . In reversing the district court , the Supreme Court held the duty to preserve evidence is not unlimited and a party may reasonably need to destroy evidence it had a duty to preserve . Because Toman had sufficient knowledge to protect its interests and time to inspect the pond before the modification was made , despite the lack of notice from Koch , the Supreme Court held dismissing Koch ’ s counterclaim was not an appropriate sanction .
W . Dakota Oil , Inc . v . Kathrein Trucking , LLC , 2022 ND 111 . Filed 5 / 26 / 22 .
Lee Kathrein appealed the district court ’ s judgment piercing the corporate veil of Kathrein Trucking , LLC , finding him personally liable for the company ’ s debts . West Dakota Oil sued Kathrein Trucking , and its owner , Kathrein , for failing to pay for fuel it provided . After a bench trial , the district court ordered Kathrein , and his company , to pay damages jointly and severally . In piercing the corporate veil under the alter ego approach , the district court found Kathrein disregarded the corporate formalities required for LLCs , provided West Dakota title to a trailer he individually owned as security for the company ’ s debt , charged items at West Dakota that he personally used , and utilized company assets for personal use .
In reversing the district court ’ s judgment piercing the corporate veil , the Supreme Court held each factor required for piercing was not individually addressed , and the district court made conclusory findings that Kathrein disregarded the formalities required of companies to avoid personal liability . The Supreme Court also held the evidence did not support a finding that Kathrein disregarded corporate formalities , and the findings did not specify the formalities Kathrein disregarded . The Supreme Court likewise held the evidence did not support a finding that Kathrein charged items to the company for his personal use , and the findings did not address factors such as insufficient capitalization , insolvency at the time of the transaction , siphoning of funds , absence of corporate records , or the existence of the company as a facade for individual dealings .
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS
Full-service business firm with 30 + years of experience representing clients in bankruptcy courts in ND and MN , including adversary actions .
KALER DOELING PLLP
PATRICK SINNER - ATTORNEY
3429 INTERSTATE BLVD . S . FARGO , ND 58103
701-232-8757 FAX : 701-232-0624
KALER-DOELING . COM
SUMMER 2022 25