Nastrom v. Nastrom, Nos. 970260

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtMESCHKE
Citation576 N.W.2d 215
PartiesSharon NASTROM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ned NASTROM, Defendant and Appellee. Civil
Decision Date08 April 1998
Docket NumberNos. 970260,970204

Page 215

576 N.W.2d 215
1998 ND 75
Sharon NASTROM, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Ned NASTROM, Defendant and Appellee.
Civil Nos. 970260, 970204.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
April 8, 1998.

Page 216

Chapman and Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Daniel J. Chapman.

Severin, Ringsak & Morrow, Bismarck, for defendant and appellee; argued by Brenda A. Neubauer.

MESCHKE, Justice.

¶1 Sharon Nastrom appealed an order denying her motion for an extension of time to appeal an amended divorce decree eliminating her spousal support from Ned Nastrom. We affirm the denial of an extension of time, and dismiss her tardy appeal of the amended decree.

¶2 In 1977 Sharon and Ned were divorced for irreconcilable differences after a 23-year marriage. The divorce decree divided their property and ordered Ned to pay Sharon $1,000 support monthly until her death or remarriage. Sharon appealed, and we reversed and remanded for a new trial on property division only. Nastrom v. Nastrom, 262 N.W.2d 487 (N.D.1978). After a new trial on remand, Sharon again appealed and, in Nastrom v. Nastrom, 284 N.W.2d 576 (N.D.1979), we affirmed the revised division made.

¶3 After paying spousal support to Sharon for 19 years, in 1996 Ned moved to eliminate support for substantial changes in circumstances because his car dealership had been foreclosed and he had suffered a debilitating stroke. The trial court entered an amended decree eliminating spousal support. Entry of the amended decree was noticed to Sharon on March 25, 1997. Sharon filed a notice of appeal on June 19, 1997, more than 60 days after the entry of the decree. See N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). On that same day, Sharon moved for an extension of time to appeal. On June 24, the trial court denied Sharon an extension of time for her failure to show excusable neglect.

¶4 Sharon then moved for leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion, and we "temporarily remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of consideration of a Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., Motion" on August 22, 1997. On September 19, 1997, Ned moved for a protective order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 26(c). On September 29, the trial court entered an order prohibiting further discovery against Ned. The trial court denied Sharon's Rule 60(b) motion. 1 Meanwhile, on August 11, Sharon had timely appealed the June 24, 1997 order denying her an extension of time to appeal the amended decree.

¶5 Sharon's appeal of the amended decree was filed 86 days after notice of its entry. The relevant parts of North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a) direct:

In a civil case the notice of appeal ... must be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the judgment or order appealed from.... Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the trial court may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal by any party for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this subdivision. Such an extension may be granted before or after the time otherwise prescribed by this subdivision has expired; but if a request for an extension is made after such time has expired, it shall be made by motion with such notice as the trial court shall deem appropriate.

Under this rule, Sharon's appeal time could have been extended to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Fischer, No. 20060153.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 2007
    ...motion for an extension because of his complete failure to make any showing of excusable neglect); Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 8, 576 N.W.2d 215 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the movant's request for an extension because her claim of excusabl......
  • Nastrom v. Nastrom, No. 980028
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 16 Julio 1998
    ...denying her Rule 60(b), N.D. R. Civ. P., motion for relief from a final judgment or order. In Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, p 4 n. 1, 576 N.W.2d 215 (Nastrom III ), we declined to consider this issue because it was not consolidated with the appeal from the order denying an extension of ti......
  • Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co., No. 990119.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 5 Abril 2000
    ...court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably or unreasonably. Nastrom 609 N.W.2d 88 v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 6, 576 N.W.2d 215. In this case, the trial court granted Magic City's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal "for good cause shown" and f......
  • Myers v. Myers, No. 990075.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 20 Octubre 1999
    ...and the court's determination will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.'" Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 6, 576 N.W.2d 215 (quoting Routledge v. Routledge, 377 N.W.2d 542, 547 (N.D.1985)). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Fischer, No. 20060153.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 2007
    ...motion for an extension because of his complete failure to make any showing of excusable neglect); Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 8, 576 N.W.2d 215 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the movant's request for an extension because her claim of excusabl......
  • Nastrom v. Nastrom, No. 980028
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 16 Julio 1998
    ...denying her Rule 60(b), N.D. R. Civ. P., motion for relief from a final judgment or order. In Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, p 4 n. 1, 576 N.W.2d 215 (Nastrom III ), we declined to consider this issue because it was not consolidated with the appeal from the order denying an extension of ti......
  • Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co., No. 990119.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 5 Abril 2000
    ...court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably or unreasonably. Nastrom 609 N.W.2d 88 v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 6, 576 N.W.2d 215. In this case, the trial court granted Magic City's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal "for good cause shown" and f......
  • Myers v. Myers, No. 990075.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 20 Octubre 1999
    ...and the court's determination will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.'" Nastrom v. Nastrom, 1998 ND 75, ¶ 6, 576 N.W.2d 215 (quoting Routledge v. Routledge, 377 N.W.2d 542, 547 (N.D.1985)). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT