Knorr v. Norberg

• Decision Date: 12 September 2022
• Docket Number: 20220064
• Citation: 977 N.W.2d 711
• Parties: Alonna KNORR f/k/a Alonna Knorr Norberg, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Jon David NORBERG, Defendant and Appellee and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

977 N.W.2d 711

Alonna KNORR f/k/a Alonna Knorr Norberg, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Jon David NORBERG, Defendant and Appellee
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20220064

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed July 21, 2022
Corrected Opinion Filed September 12, 2022

Charles A. Stock, Crookston, MN, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.

Jon D. Norberg, self-represented, Maple Grove, MN, defendant and appellee; submitted on brief.

VandeWalle, Justice.

¶1] Alonna Knorr, formerly known as Alonna Knorr Norberg, appealed from a money judgment entered in favor of Jon Norberg for Knorr's share of unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce judgment. Knorr argues the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment because the parties had a global settlement agreement that resolved the issues in this case. We conclude the district court did not adequately explain its decision. We retain jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

[¶2] Knorr and Norberg were divorced in 2013. The parties’ assets and debts were divided, and Knorr was ordered to pay certain debts in the divorce judgment.

[¶3] In July 2021, Norberg moved to amend the judgment, requesting an order allowing him to relocate to Minnesota with the parties’ children and a money judgment against Knorr for unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce judgment. Knorr did not respond to the motion. In August 2021, the district court granted the motion.

[¶4] In September 2021, Knorr moved to dismiss, vacate, or set aside the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment. She argued the parties entered into a global settlement agreement resolving all existing legal matters between the parties. She filed a copy of the settlement agreement as an exhibit to her motion. The district court denied her motion without explanation.

[¶5] In October 2021, Knorr renewed her motion to dismiss, vacate, or set aside the order, again arguing the motion was supported by the settlement agreement. Norberg opposed the motion. The district court denied Knorr's motion, explaining that Knorr did not respond to Norberg's motion. A judgment was entered.

II

[¶6] Knorr argues the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment. She contends the parties entered into a global settlement agreement resolving all pending legal

[977 N.W.2d 714

matters, including Norberg's motion to amend the judgment.

[¶7] Knorr failed to identify the rule under which she was seeking relief in her motion. Because she requested the district court dismiss or vacate the order, her motion will be treated as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Orwig v. Orwig , 2019 ND 78, ¶ 19, 924 N.W.2d 421 (holding a motion to vacate would be treated as a motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ). The district court's decision on a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. Davis, 2021 ND 24, ¶ 5, 955 N.W.2d 117. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or it is misinterprets or misapplies the law. Id.

¶8] On appeal, Knorr argues she is entitled to relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or (6). Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the district court may relieve a party from a judgment or order if: "(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."

[¶9] This Court has said it encourages parties to reach "peaceful settlements of disputes in divorce matters because there is strong public policy favoring prompt and peaceful resolution of divorce disputes." Sims v. Sims , 2020 ND 110, ¶ 31, 943 N.W.2d 804 (quoting Vann v. Vann , 2009 ND 118, ¶ 12, 767 N.W.2d 855 ). "Even while controversies are in litigation there is nothing to prevent parties from making a compromise settlement. The law discourages litigation and encourages settlement." In re...