Gross v. Gross, 900367
| Decision Date | 05 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 900367,900367 |
| Citation | 466 N.W.2d 154 |
| Parties | Leland W. GROSS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Arva Del L. GROSS, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Severin and Ringsak, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Steven F. Lamb.
John J. Gosbee (argued), Mandan, for defendant and appellant.
Arva Del L. Gross appeals from an order of the district court denying her motion for clarification of an original divorce decree. We reverse and remand.
By judgment dated April 26, 1989, the trial court granted Arva Del a divorce from Leland Gross on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The original judgment provided:
The marital home was sold to a third party more than one year after the original divorce judgment was entered. The settlement statement shows that the gross sale price for the home was $45,000 less total reductions of $37,195.78 for net cash proceeds to the seller of $7,804.22. Asserting that some of the items deducted from the sale price of the home were not intended by the trial court to be deducted in arriving at her share of the proceeds, Arva Del filed a motion requesting relief from the original divorce judgment or, in the alternative, for a clarification of the judgment. The trial court treated Arva Del's motion as a request for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., and concluded that Arva Del had not established a right to relief.
The property and debt listing shows that both Leland and Arva Del included a first mortgage and a second mortgage on the home as part of the marital debt. Leland valued the first mortgage at approximately $17,000 and the second mortgage at $2,415. He valued total marital debt at approximately $21,000. Arva Del valued each mortgage and the total marital debt somewhat higher.
The trial court found that the home had a value of $42,000 with a $17,000 mortgage resulting in a net equity to the parties of $25,000. The court made no reference to the second mortgage. As an alternative to selling the home with Arva Del getting one half of the net proceeds, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kukla v. Kukla
...Anderson v. Anderson, 522 N.W.2d 476 (N.D.1994); Sullivan, 506 N.W.2d 394;Conitz v. Conitz, 467 N.W.2d 93 (N.D.1991); Gross v. Gross, 466 N.W.2d 154 (N.D.1991); Wastvedt v. Wastvedt, 371 N.W.2d 142 (N.D.1985)). [¶ 42] When the language of a judgment is unambiguous, “the effect of the langua......
-
Neubauer v. Neubauer
...522 N.W.2d 476 (N.D.1994); Sullivan v. Quist, 506 N.W.2d 394 (N.D.1993); Conitz v. Conitz, 467 N.W.2d 93 (N.D.1991); Gross v. Gross, 466 N.W.2d 154 (N.D.1991); Wastvedt v. Wastvedt, 371 N.W.2d 142 Other jurisdictions have reached a similar result. See, e.g., Nelson v. Quade, 413 N.W.2d 824 ......
-
Conitz v. Conitz, 900211
...to a trial on issues of disputed material fact. We disagree. The district court has the power to clarify a prior order. See Gross v. Gross, 466 N.W.2d 154 (N.D.1991); Wastvedt v. Wastvedt, 371 N.W.2d 142 (N.D.1985). Betty made her motion for clarification under Rule 3.2, North Dakota Rules ......