North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Scott O . Diamond , Joshua A . Swanson , and Ian McLean
Authors ’ Note and Caveat : The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court . Because the following contains the authors ’ summary of the decisions , the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value , if any , in any given case .
Joseph S . Motisi v . Hebron Public School District , 2021 ND 229 . Filed 12-23-2021
The Supreme Court affirmed a denial of a petition for writ of mandamus from a teacher requesting the district court to require the school district to offer him a full-time teaching contract . The teacher worked for the Hebron School District in the 2019-20 and 2020- 21 school years . Prior to teaching in the Hebron School District , the teacher had worked in another school district for four years . Hebron School District considered the teacher to be a “ probationary teacher ” as the teacher had taught in the Hebron School District for less than two years . The teacher argued he was not a probationary teacher under the plain language of N . D . C . C . § 15.1-15-02 , which defines the term “ probationary teacher ” as an individual teaching for less than two years .
The Supreme Court held that when considering the statute as a whole and giving meaning to each of its parts , the district court did not err in interpreting “ probationary teacher ” to mean an individual teaching for less than two years in a particular school district .
Am . Fed . Bank v . Grommesh , 2021 ND 228 . Filed 12-23-2021 .
Grommesh and Pansch appealed from summary judgment in favor of American Federal Bank in its action to enforce four guaranties on loans to start Jerret ’ s Plumbing . Jerret ’ s Plumbing was started by their children with Grommesh and Pansch each signing two guaranties related to the loans . When Jerret ’ s Plumbing defaulted on its loans , American Federal sued Grommesh and Pansch to enforce all four guaranties , ultimately moving for summary judgment to enforce them .
The Supreme Court held the general rules of contract construction at Chapter 9-07 , N . D . C . C ., apply to interpret guaranties , including the language of a contract governing its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity under N . D . C . C . § 9-07-02 . If a contract ’ s language is clear and unambiguous , and the parties ’ intent can be determined from the writing alone , extrinsic evidence is not admissible to alter or change the contract . When several contracts related to the same matter between the same parties are made as part of substantially one transaction , they are read and construed together pursuant to N . D . C . C . § 9-07-07 . The plain language of the guaranties required Grommesh and Pansch to guaranty and discharge Jerret ’ s Plumbing obligations under the notes , including any renewals , extensions , and modifications of the notes . The guaranties also authorized American Federal to make additional loans , extend additional credit , or alter the terms of the loans without giving the guarantor notice and without reducing the guarantor ’ s liability , which the Supreme Court held constituted a “ continuing guaranty .” The Supreme Court held there was no language in any of the loan documents that limited the guaranties to the original loan amount , even when the outstanding indebtedness has a zero balance , and read as a whole , they were not ambiguous .
State v . Neilan , 2021 ND 217 . Filed 12-9-2021 .
The defendant pled guilty to possession of marijuana , as part of a N . D . R . Crim . P . 11 binding plea agreement . Under the agreement , the state agreed to drop the firearm enhancement , which removed the mandatory minimum for the charge . The plea agreement required a term of imprisonment . The district court reluctantly accepted the binding plea agreement . The following day , the district court initiated its own N . D . R . Crim . P . 35 motion for reduction of sentence . The state objected . Two days later , the district court reduced the defendant ’ s sentence from a term of incarceration to probation . The state appealed .
In a split opinion , the majority found the district court ’ s actions in reducing the defendant ’ s sentence under Rule 35 were not inconsistent with Rule 11 and declined to hold that Rule 35 was limited by Rule 11 . The majority concluded the immediate reduction of sentence motion in the absence of any new facts was an intent to circumvent the plea agreement and an abuse of discretion . However , even if the district court abused its discretion , N . D . C . C . § 29-28- 35 precluded the Supreme Court from reversing or modifying a judgment in a way that increases the punishment to a defendant . Under the circumstances , the majority determined it could only affirm the amended sentence imposed by the district court and point out the error in the proceeding .
Diamond is the owner of Diamond Law Firm in Fargo where he practices municipal law , criminal law and general litigation .
Swanson is a shareholder at Vogel Law Firm in Fargo where he practices energy law , construction and property law , and general litigation .
McLean is a shareholder at Serkland Law Firm in Fargo where he practices in commercial litigation , municipal and education law , and criminal law .
24 THE GAVEL