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.
Palmer v. Gentek Building Products, Inc.,
2019 ND 306. Filed 12-20-19.
In this breach of warranty/contractual action, the plaintiffs sued the
manufacturer of the steel siding placed on their home, claiming the
siding was defective. The plaintiffs were not alone in their claims of
paint defects in the siding as thousands of others also experienced
delaminated paint and filed warranty claims with Gentek, the
manufacturer. A class action lawsuit resulted from those other claims,
which was filed in federal court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The Federal District Court of Ohio approved a settlement in that
class action. The plaintiffs commenced this separate action in North
Dakota against Gentek alleging breach of warranty. Gentek moved
the district court for summary judgment before trial, asserting the
final order and judgment approving the class action settlement in
the Ohio Federal Court class action barred the plaintiffs’ claim as a
matter of law in this case. The district court denied Gentek’s motion
for summary judgment based on the settlement and held that the
plaintiffs were not bound by the Ohio Federal Court judgment in
the class action because the Federal Court did not acquire personal
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs to make them parties in that action.
The Supreme Court held that a party seeking to avoid the binding
effect of a prior judgment is entitled to collaterally attack the
judgment on the grounds the rendering court had no jurisdiction
over him or her at the time the judgment was entered. The Court
stated a judgment issued without proper personal jurisdiction over
an absent party is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere and
thus has no res judicata effect as to that party. The Supreme Court
determined the plaintiffs in this case did not receive individual
notice of the Ohio class action and its settlement and, therefore, were
not bound by the settlement and the resultant judgment in Ohio
dismissing all class action claims based on the settlement.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiffs’ right to pursue
a breach of warranty claim against Gentek in North Dakota and
affirmed the judgment awarding the plaintiffs’ damages.
State v. Komrosky,
2019 ND 300. Filed 12-12-19.
In this criminal case involving possession of drugs and contraband,
the Supreme Court stated a warrantless discovery of evidence in a
defendant’s home is justified under the emergency exception to the
warrant requirement, if entry into the home was actually motivated
by a perceived need to render aid or assistance to someone in the
home by law enforcement personnel. The Supreme Court stated an
objective standard of reasonableness is used in determining whether
law enforcement had reasonable grounds to believe there was an
emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for
the protection of life or property in the home.
Additionally, once in the home, plain view is a recognized exception
to the warrant requirement, allowing law enforcement officers to
seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant, if the officers
are lawfully in a position from which they can view an object and the
object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.
Accordingly, because the law enforcement officer was properly in the
home without a warrant, and while in the home observed obvious
drug paraphernalia in plain view, the Supreme Court upheld the
district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the seized
evidence and affirmed the district court’s criminal judgment against
the defendant for drug-related charges.
Saastad v. Saastad,
2019 ND 279. Filed 11-25-19.
In a child custody and support case, the Supreme Court stated a
district court need not make findings of fact regarding financial need
or ability to pay when ordering attorney’s fees as a sanction. Because
such a sanction would be in the nature of a punitive measure, the
issues of financial need or ability to pay are not relevant.
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 States 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.
20
THE GAVEL