Karsky v. Kirby, 20030354.
Decision Date | 03 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 20030354.,20030354. |
Citation | 680 N.W.2d 257,2004 ND 110 |
Parties | Timothy J. KARSKY, in his official capacities as Commissioner of the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions, and as Conservator of No-Dak State Trust Company, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Jane Dorothea KIRBY, an individual person, Defendant and Appellant and Dr. Thomas J. Clifford, in his capacity as president of NoDak State Trust Company, Defendant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Scott A. Miller (argued), Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas Bruce Anderson (on brief), Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Thomas D. Kelsch (argued) and Thomas F. Kelsch (on brief), Kelsch, Kelsch, Ruff & Kranda, Mandan, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1] Jane Dorothea Kirby appealed from a district court judgment appointing a receiver to liquidate NoDak State Trust Company ("NoDak"). We hold that Kirby waived her right to an administrative hearing under N.D.C.C. § 6-08-08.1(6) from the State Banking Board's ("Board") denial of her application to acquire control of NoDak, and we affirm.
[¶ 2] NoDak is a trust company that was formed in the spring of 1963. In 1990, it was placed in conservatorship by the Board. In 2001, defendant Kirby's husband transferred his stock in NoDak to her when he became seriously ill. Subsequently, the Commissioner of the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions informed Kirby she had failed to obtain that agency's approval of the transfer. The Commissioner brought a suit in 2002 to dissolve and liquidate NoDak, asserting the company lacked authority to exercise banking business.
[¶ 3] On February 11, 2003, the parties entered into a stipulation resolving issues raised by the Commissioner. The stipulation provided that Kirby could file an application for approval by the Board for her to acquire control of NoDak. The stipulation was incorporated into a judgment on April 28, 2003.
[¶ 4] Kirby filed an application to acquire control, which was denied by the Board. The Commissioner then filed a motion to reopen the case and requested the district court to appoint a receiver to liquidate NoDak. The court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner, from which Kirby filed this appeal.
[¶ 5] Section 6-08-08.1(6), N.D.C.C., gives an applicant a right to a hearing when an application for approval of the transfer of ownership of a banking institution is denied by the Board:
Within twenty days after receipt of the notice of disapproval, the applicant may request a hearing on the disapproval. The board must conduct a hearing, if requested, under the provisions of chapter 28-32. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall by order approve or disapprove the application on the basis of the record at the hearing.
[¶ 6] Kirby claims she was denied her statutory right to a hearing on the Board's denial of her application to acquire control of NoDak. The district court ruled against Kirby on this issue and explained its reasoning in its November 12, 2003 memorandum opinion:
It is this Court's conclusion that the defendant has waived her right to further legal proceedings, and that the appointment of a receiver for purposes of liquidation is both timely and in accordance with the Judgment of the Court.
[¶ 7] Kirby argues that under the clear and unambiguous terms of the stipulation she was entitled to and did not waive her right to an administrative review of the Board's decision. Relevant to this issue, the stipulation provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmitz v. N. D. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs
...administrative hearings and formal dispositions and agree to some other form of informal disposition. See N.D.C.C. § 28-32-22 ; Karsky v. Kirby , 2004 ND 110, ¶ 10, 680 N.W.2d 257 ; Gale v. N.D. Bd. of Podiatric Med. , 2001 ND 141, ¶ 13, 632 N.W.2d 424. Section 28-32-22, N.D.C.C., provides ......
- Greybull v. State, 20040040.
-
Lee v. Lee
...Id. "When a judgment is clarified by the same trial judge who entered it, we afford the clarification considerable deference." Karsky v. Kirby, 2004 ND 110, ¶ 8, 680 N.W.2d [¶ 7] The stipulation was incorporated into the divorce judgment in January 2002. The judge who entered the divorce ju......
-
Frisk v. Frisk, 20050051
...into a judgment, we are concerned only with interpretation and enforcement of the judgment, not with the underlying contract," Karsky v. Kirby, 2004 ND 110, ¶ 8, 680 N.W.2d 257 (citing Botner v. Botner, 545 N.W.2d 188, 190 (N.D. 1996)), we do not believe the Legislature envisioned a procedu......