Vetter v. Vetter

19 Citing cases

  1. Muraskin v. Muraskin

    283 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    In Muraskin v. Muraskin, 283 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1979), we concluded that frustration of visitation privileges alone cannot constitute a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change in custody.

    Our court has said, on several occasions, that the determination of custody of minor children by the trial court is subject to the "clearly erroneous" provisions of Rule 52(a), NDRCivP, Hegge v. Hegge, 236 N.W.2d 910, 914 (N.D. 1975). See also, Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 792 (N.D. 1978). Although, generally, trial courts are not required to prepare findings on motions under Rule 52(a), NDRCivP, there is an exception to motions involving a modification of child custody. The fact-finding process is necessary in this situation to facilitate a proper determination concerning whether there has been a material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody.

  2. Brookings Assoc. v. State Bd. of Equal

    482 N.W.2d 873 (S.D. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Finding failure to include functional depreciation in assessor's appraisal report violated our holding in Rau, supra

    Such a practice is frowned upon. See, Roberts v. Ross, 344 F.2d 747, 751-752 (3rd Cir. 1965) (this practice viewed with disfavor in majority of Federal District Courts); Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 797 (N.D. 1978). In challenging a tax assessment ruling, Associates has two presumptions to overcome:

  3. Heldstab v. Heldstab

    922 N.W.2d 782 (N.D. 2019)

    He argues the district court erred in adopting her proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment verbatim, rather than making its own determination and issuing its own findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7) ; McDowell v. McDowell , 2003 ND 174, ¶ 8, 670 N.W.2d 876 (quoting Schmidkunz v. Schmidkunz , 529 N.W.2d 857, 858 (N.D. 1995) ) (" ‘When the [district] court affixes its signature to the findings, even though drafted by counsel, they become the findings of the court, and if they adequately explain the basis of the court’s decision,’ the findings will be upheld."); see also Dale Expl., LLC v. Hiepler , 2018 ND 271, ¶ 8, 920 N.W.2d 750 ; Vetter v. Vetter , 267 N.W.2d 790, 792 (N.D. 1978).[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

  4. McDowell v. McDowell

    2003 N.D. 174 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 20 times

    Schmidkunz v. Schmidkunz, 529 N.W.2d 857, 858 (N.D. 1995); Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 553 N.W.2d 215, 218 (N.D. 1996). "When the trial judge affixes his signature to the findings of fact they become the findings of the court."Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 792 (N.D. 1978). [¶ 9] Before signing the findings prepared by Sharon McDowell's attorney, the district court reviewed and revised them.

  5. Davis v. Davis

    458 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 14 times

    When the trial judge affixes his signature to the findings of fact they become the findings of the court irrespective of whether or not they have been prepared by counsel. Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1978)."D.G. Porter, Inc. v. Fridley, 373 N.W.2d 917, 920 (N.D. 1985). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the written findings made by the trial court are supported by the evidence.

  6. Gravning v. Gravning

    389 N.W.2d 621 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 35 times
    Stating the primary caretaker rule "inheres in the statutory factors and has not yet been accorded elevated status"

    Any conduct of a parent which adversely affects the welfare of the child is regarded as a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody. E.g., Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1978); Jordana v. Corley, 220 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 1974); Goff v. Goff, 211 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 1973). Therefore, we do not believe that every expressed condition can be condemned.

  7. D.G. Porter, Inc. v. Fridley

    373 N.W.2d 917 (N.D. 1985)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the North Dakota UCC did not apply to the sale of a bar business where the essential elements of the sale involved goodwill, transfer of liquor license, assignment of a lease, and transfer or assignment of insurance policies and contracts related to the business

    When the trial judge affixes his signature to the findings of fact they become the findings of the court irrespective of whether or not they have been prepared by counsel. Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1978). In this case, the trial judge requested proposed findings to be submitted by counsel for both parties, and the judge subsequently adopted the findings prepared by Porter's counsel.

  8. Matter of Boschee

    347 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    In Matter of Boschee, 347 N.W.2d 331, 335 (N.D. 1984), we held that on appeals of administrative agency decisions, courts may consider only those grounds specified — however, the grounds must come within the provisions of § 28-32-19.

    Voskuil v. Voskuil, 256 N.W.2d 526, 530 (N.D. 1977). See also, Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790 (N.D. 1978); Matson v. Matson, 226 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 1975); and Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1974). Compare, however, Struchynski v. Decker, 194 N.W.2d 741 (N.D. 1972) and Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960). Professor Davis in 2 Administrative Law Treatise § 16.06 (1958) describes the adequacy of administrative agency findings in relation to ". . . the need of the reviewing court for a clear view of the basis for the agency's action.

  9. LAPP v. LAPP

    336 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1983)   Cited 13 times

    He is familiar with all of the facts involved in the dissolution of this family and in its history since that time. See Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 793 (N.D. 1978). During the hearing on Lynette's motion, the judge heard testimony from Lynette, her parents, Dale, his mother, his fiancee, and others. The trial judge is better able to ascertain the facts because he can listen to and observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

  10. Eszlinger v. Wetzel

    326 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    Nevertheless, if this court is to give trial court findings of fact the deference that Rule 52(a) contemplates, we must clearly understand how those findings support the conclusion reached. See, e.g., Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 794-795 (N.D. 1978), and Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Ass'n v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829, 836 (N.D. 1974). We do not intend to imply that an unexplained finding that the contract "was given by mistake" or "obtained through fraud" would be alone adequate.