Hoffman v. Jevne
Citation | 930 N.W.2d 95 |
Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 20180367,20180367 |
Parties | Samantha HOFFMAN, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Matthew JEVNE, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
David M. Knoll, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Theresa L. Kellington, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant, on brief.
[¶1] Matthew Jevne appeals an order denying his motion for an order to show cause against Samantha Hoffman. We affirm, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jevne’s motion without a hearing.
[¶2] Jevne and Hoffman have one child together. Jevne and Hoffman divorced in Texas in 2017, and Hoffman was awarded primary residential responsibility of the child. Hoffman moved to North Dakota in 2018 and registered the Texas judgment in Morton County under N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-25 as a foreign child custody determination.
[¶3] In August 2018, Jevne moved for an order to show cause, arguing Hoffman willfully violated the terms of the judgment. He argued Hoffman denied him access to information concerning the health, education and welfare of their child, denied him communication with the child and failed to reimburse him for debts he paid related to their house. Jevne requested Hoffman be found in contempt of court. Hoffman submitted a brief and affidavit disputing Jevne’s allegations and denying she violated the terms of the judgment. Jevne did not request a hearing.
[¶4] The district court denied Jevne’s motion without a hearing, finding Jevne failed to submit evidence showing Hoffman willfully violated the judgment:
[¶5] Jevne argues the district court erred in denying his motion for an order to show cause without an evidentiary hearing.
[¶6] Jevne’s notice of motion states he brought his motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2. A party bringing a N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 motion may have the motion decided on the briefs or request oral argument under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3), which provides "[i]f any party who has timely served and filed a brief requests oral argument, the request must be granted." A district court also may require oral argument under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(b), which provides "[a]fter reviewing the parties' submissions, the court may require oral argument and may allow or require evidence on a motion." Thus, unless requested by a party, oral argument on a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 is not required. See Schwalk v. Schwalk , 2014 ND 13, ¶ 12, 841 N.W.2d 767 ().
[¶7] Jevne’s brief in support of his motion for an order to show cause also states he brought his motion under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-10, relating to contempt. Contempt of court means "[i]ntentional disobedience, resistance, or obstruction of the authority, process, or order of a court." N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.1(1)(c). "[W]hen an act punishable as contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court, upon being satisfied of the commission of the offense, may ... [o]rder the accused to show cause at a specified time and place why the accused should not be punished for the alleged offense." N.D.C.C. § 27-10-07(1).
[¶8] "When a district court may do something, it is generally a matter of discretion." Schwalk , 2014 ND 13, ¶ 8, 841 N.W.2d 767. A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, if it misinterprets or misapplies the law or if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. State v. White , 2018 ND 58, ¶ 8, 907 N.W.2d 765. A court has broad discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lessard v. Johnson
...and this Court will not reverse the district court’s decision unless it abused its discretion. Hoffman v. Jevne , 2019 ND 156, ¶ 8, 930 N.W.2d 95. [¶35] Johnson did not request oral argument in either his notice of motion or in the motion for contempt. Lessard responded to Johnson’s motion ......
-
McCormick, Inc. v. Fredericks
...misinterprets or misapplies the law or when its decision is not based on a rational mental process. Hoffman v. Jevne , 2019 ND 156, ¶ 8, 930 N.W.2d 95. [¶25] At trial, McCormick's and Northern Improvement's attorney designated a representative for each entity. Fredericks requested sequestra......
-
Huerd v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 20190125
...842. "[U]nless requested by a party, oral argument on a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 is not required." Hoffman v. Jevne , 2019 ND 156, ¶ 6, 930 N.W.2d 95.[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jon J. Jensen Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. ...
- Johnston Land Co. v. Sorenson