Nuveen v. Nuveen, No. 20120080.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtVANDE WALLE
Citation2012 ND 182,820 N.W.2d 726
PartiesMichiel James NUVEEN, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Elizabeth Ann NUVEEN, Defendant and Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 20120080.
Decision Date30 August 2012

820 N.W.2d 726
2012 ND 182

Michiel James NUVEEN, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Elizabeth Ann NUVEEN, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 20120080.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Aug. 30, 2012.


[820 N.W.2d 728]


Patti J. Jensen, Grand Forks, MN, for plaintiff and appellant.

Scott D. Jensen, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellee.


VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Michiel Nuveen appealed from an order holding him in contempt of court for failing to pay a property settlement as ordered in an amended divorce judgment. We affirm, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held Michiel Nuveen in contempt of court.

I

[¶ 2] Michiel and Elizabeth Nuveen married in 1991. Michiel Nuveen sued for divorce in 2007, and a partial judgment of divorce was entered reserving most financial issues for a later trial. After a five-day trial, an amended judgment resolving the financial issues was entered on April 26, 2010, and a redacted version of the amended judgment was entered on May 6, 2010. Michiel Nuveen appealed and Elizabeth Nuveen cross-appealed, and this Court affirmed the amended judgment. See Nuveen v. Nuveen, 2011 ND 44, 795 N.W.2d 308.

[¶ 3] The amended judgment divided the parties' assets, and as part of the property division Michiel Nuveen was ordered to make cash payments to Elizabeth Nuveen:

To equalize the property settlement, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant a cash property settlement payment of $513,800 to be paid as follows: $213,800 to be paid no later than April 15, 2010 and the balance of $300,000 plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be paid in annual installments of $100,000 principal plus accrued interest due the 15th day of April commencing April 15, 2011, until paid in full. There shall be no penalty for prepayment.

On June 3, 2010, Michiel Nuveen's attorney sent a copy of a check for $513,800 to Elizabeth Nuveen's attorney and offered payment of that amount in exchange for execution of a full satisfaction of all amounts due under the amended judgment except child support and spousal support. Elizabeth Nuveen rejected the offer because it did not include accrued interest and because Michiel Nuveen refused to stipulate that acceptance of the payment would not affect Elizabeth Nuveen's rights under the then-pending appeal from the amended judgment.


[¶ 4] On May 13, 2011, having received no property distribution payments under the judgment, Elizabeth Nuveen filed an application for an order to show cause requesting the district court find Michiel Nuveen in contempt for failing to comply with the amended judgment. On May 18, 2011, Michiel Nuveen's attorney sent a copy of a check for $513,000 to Elizabeth Nuveen's attorney, again offering payment if Elizabeth Nuveen executed a full satisfaction of all amounts due under the amended judgment. Elizabeth Nuveen again rejected the offer because it did not include $800 of the required principal, did not include interest, and required her to execute a full satisfaction of the judgment. Finally, on June 23, 2011, Michiel Nuveen tendered a check payable to Elizabeth Nuveen in the amount of $507,500 which, together with an agreed-upon credit for a $5,500 overpayment of his child support, represented a $513,000 payment toward the property settlement. The payment was not conditioned upon execution of a satisfaction of judgment. Elizabeth Nuveen

[820 N.W.2d 729]

accepted the payment, but contended she was still owed $800 in principal and more than $36,000 in interest.

[¶ 5] The district court issued an order to show cause on June 24, 2011. After briefing by the parties, the district court found Michiel Nuveen in contempt of court for failing to make the payments as ordered in the amended judgment, but also found he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Cashmore v. Cashmore (In re Estate of Cashmore), No. 20130012.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • August 29, 2013
    ...argues the district court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to pay Trudy Cashmore $6,377.83. [¶ 9] In Nuveen v. Nuveen, 2012 ND 182, ¶ 10, 820 N.W.2d 726, this Court said: Intentional, willful, and inexcusable disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court under N.D.......
  • Dahly v. Anderson, No. 20120013.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2012
    ...limits and that he was ineligible for Medicaid benefits.IV [¶ 19] We reverse the judgment affirming the Department's final order, and we [820 N.W.2d 726]remand to the Department to redetermine Wilfred Dahly's eligibility for Medicaid benefits without considering the proceeds from the sale o......
  • Peterson v. Schulz, No. 20160377
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 29, 2017
    ...making contempt determinations, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. Nuveen v. Nuveen , 2012 ND 182, ¶ 10, 820 N.W.2d 726. A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner, its decision is not ......
3 cases
  • Cashmore v. Cashmore (In re Estate of Cashmore), No. 20130012.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • August 29, 2013
    ...argues the district court erred in finding him in contempt for failing to pay Trudy Cashmore $6,377.83. [¶ 9] In Nuveen v. Nuveen, 2012 ND 182, ¶ 10, 820 N.W.2d 726, this Court said: Intentional, willful, and inexcusable disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court under N.D.......
  • Dahly v. Anderson, No. 20120013.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2012
    ...limits and that he was ineligible for Medicaid benefits.IV [¶ 19] We reverse the judgment affirming the Department's final order, and we [820 N.W.2d 726]remand to the Department to redetermine Wilfred Dahly's eligibility for Medicaid benefits without considering the proceeds from the sale o......
  • Peterson v. Schulz, No. 20160377
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 29, 2017
    ...making contempt determinations, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. Nuveen v. Nuveen , 2012 ND 182, ¶ 10, 820 N.W.2d 726. A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner, its decision is not ......

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