In the Interest of S.J.F. v. R.C.W

9 Citing cases

  1. Riemers v. State

    2008 N.D. 101 (N.D. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    In Riemers, this Court reviewed the reasonableness of an attorney's fees award in a frivolous lawsuit against the State. 2008 ND 101, ¶ 15, 750 N.W.2d 407.

    When this Court denies a petition to review a court of appeals decision, the decision becomes final. Interest of S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 17, 615 N.W.2d 533. "Once an appellate court has finally determined a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, its decision becomes the law of the case and will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case." Id.

  2. Wigginton v. Wigginton

    2005 N.D. 31 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 30 times
    Upholding order giving custodial parent sole discretion to determine noncustodial parent's visitation because noncustodial parent presented danger to children and custodial parent encouraged children to have relationship with noncustodial parent

    Lukenbill v. Fettig, 2001 ND 47, ¶ 9, 623 N.W.2d 7 (quoting Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶¶ 11, 12, 590 N.W.2d 215). "The determination of back child support under N.D.C.C. § 14-17-14(4) lies within the trial court's discretion, and its decision will be reversed on appeal only if the court abused its discretion." Lukenbill, at ¶ 6 (quoting In re S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 22, 615 N.W.2d 533). "A district court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably." Lukenbill, at ¶ 6 (citing Christl v. Swanson, 2000 ND 74, ¶ 7, 609 N.W.2d 70).

  3. Boumont v. Boumont

    2005 N.D. 20 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    Stating a custodial arrangement that is substantially different than contemplated in the divorce decree may be a material change in circumstances

    A. [¶ 5] Interpretation of a divorce judgment is a question of law that is fully reviewable on appeal. Logan v. Bush, 2000 ND 203, ¶ 30, 621 N.W.2d 314; In re S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 14, 615 N.W.2d 533; Jorgenson v. Ratajczak, 1999 ND 65, ¶ 13, 592 N.W.2d 527. In this case, the divorce judgment states the following regarding child custody:

  4. Praus v. Mack

    2001 N.D. 80 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming a denial of a motion to sever trial of an indemnity claim from trial of a negligence action

    Schneider v. Schaaf, 1999 ND 235, ¶ 12, 603 N.W.2d 869. A trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. Inre S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 22, 615 N.W.2d 533. A

  5. Bartusch v. Hager

    2001 N.D. 53 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 21 times

    [¶ 20] Whether a change of venue is required to obtain a fair and impartial trial is a question of fact, and we will not overturn a trial court's decision granting or denying a motion for change of venue unless the court abused its discretion. Eckman v. Stutsman County, 1999 ND 151, ¶ 7, 598 N.W.2d 494. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.In re S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 22, 615 N.W.2d 533. [¶ 21] The only evidence presented in support of the motion were exhibits Bartusch submitted for the 1997 and 1998 tax levies for Ramsey County showing 1.5 mills is assessed annually for the county library.

  6. Lukenbill v. Fettig

    2001 N.D. 47 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that a trial court errs as a matter of law when it fails to make required findings or required findings are not intelligible

    "The determination of back child support under N.D.C.C. § 14-17-14(4) lies within the trial court's discretion, and its decision will be reversed on appeal only if the court abused its discretion." In re S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 22, 615 N.W.2d 533. A district court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.

  7. Vogel v. Braun

    622 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    A trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. In re S.J.F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 22, 615 N.W.2d 533. [¶ 6] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

  8. Logan v. Bush

    2000 N.D. 203 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 25 times
    In Logan v. Bush, 2000 ND 203, ¶ 26, 621 N.W.2d 314, we said calculation of extended visitation requires consideration of the length of visitation "scheduled by court order," not the amount of visitation actually exercised, and if the visitation schedule in the court order meets the definition of extended visitation, the obligor is entitled to an adjustment regardless of whether, or how much, visitation is actually exercised.

    [¶ 30] Interpretation of a judgment is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. In re S. J. F., 2000 ND 158, ¶ 14, 615 N.W.2d 533; Jorgenson v. Ratajczak, 1999 ND 65, ¶ 13, 592 N.W.2d 527. We interpret this judgment to entitle Logan to exercise summer visitation exceeding sixty days.

  9. Markey v. Carney

    705 N.W.2d 13 (Iowa 2005)   Cited 145 times
    Holding theory was not available to father for purposes of challenging back child support award

    Moreover, if Kristy had established Joseph's child support obligation established when Dylan was born in 1997, Joseph's child support obligation would have likely been higher because his income was higher. See Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bell, 711 A.2d 1292, 1295 (Me. 1998) (stating laches did not apply in child support recovery action because "had the Department brought the action earlier, Bell's total obligation would have exceeded that which he owes in the present circumstances"); In re S.J.F., 615 N.W.2d 533, 538 (N.D. 2000) (stating benefit of delay inured to the benefit of the obligor because he did not have to pay child support during the period of the delay). In sum, Joseph has failed to show prejudice by clear and convincing evidence, and he cannot avail himself of the defense of laches.