Schrodt v. Schrodt
| Citation | 971 N.W.2d 861 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20210211 |
| Parties | Katie A. SCHRODT, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Joseph D. SCHRODT, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest and Appellee |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Heather M. Krumm, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Rodney E. Pagel, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
Sheila K. Keller, Special Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for statutory real party in interest and appellee; submitted on brief.
[¶1] Joseph Schrodt appealed from a divorce judgment. Joseph Schrodt raises numerous issues including the district court's denial of his request for a continuance, the court's valuation of certain marital assets, the court's calculation of child support, the court's parenting plan, and the court's award of attorney's fees and costs to Katie Schrodt. We affirm.
[¶2] Katie Schrodt and Joseph Schrodt married on May 29, 2018. Joseph Schrodt is self-employed as a welder and Katie Schrodt is employed as an equipment operator. The parties share one minor child born in 2016. In 2018, Joseph Schrodt left his job at the union to open his own business, Wolf Creek Welding, in which Katie Schrodt helped with the paperwork and taxes. Katie Schrodt commenced this divorce action in October 2019.
[¶3] On January 14, 2021, Joseph Schrodt's attorney filed a motion to withdraw based on the attorney-client relationship had irreparably broken down and Joseph Schrodt substantially failed to fulfill obligations to his attorney. His attorney also filed a request for expedited consideration. This was Joseph Schrodt's third attorney who had moved to withdraw. A hearing was held by reliable electronic means the next day but Joseph Schrodt did not appear, although Joseph Schrodt's attorney stated that she sent the information to him that morning. On January 15, 2021, the district court granted the motion to withdraw and entered the order the same day, which was 11 days before trial was scheduled.
[¶4] The divorce trial was held January 26-27, 2021. On the morning of trial, Joseph Schrodt emailed the clerk of court requesting a continuance because he did not have an attorney. Joseph Schrodt stated at beginning of trial that he was not aware of the hearing held but was aware that his attorney withdrew. The district court denied his request for a continuance, reasoning that this was his third attorney and questioned whether he would have one even if a continuance was granted. The court noted that Joseph Schrodt had known for at least a week that his attorney was withdrawing and that a lot of work goes into trial preparation including witnesses traveling for trial. Additionally, the court noted the request was untimely.
[¶5] Following the trial, the district court granted the parties’ divorce, awarded Katie Schrodt primary residential responsibility subject to Joseph Schrodt's reasonable parenting time, distributed the marital estate, ordered Joseph Schrodt to pay child support, and awarded Katie Schrodt $36,538 in attorney's fees.
[¶6] Joseph Schrodt argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance because he was not given an opportunity to respond to his counsel's motion to withdraw under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and the facts and circumstances warranted a continuance.
[¶7] It is well-settled that this Court does not review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal:
The purpose of an appeal is to review the actions of the trial court, not to grant the appellant an opportunity to develop and expound upon new strategies or theories. The requirement that a party first present an issue to the trial court, as a precondition to raising it on appeal, gives that court a meaningful opportunity to make a correct decision, contributes valuable input to the process, and develops the record for effective review of the decision. It is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider. Accordingly, issues or contentions not raised ... in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Cody v. Cody , 2019 ND 14, ¶ 15, 921 N.W.2d 679 (quoting Hoff v. Gututala-Hoff , 2018 ND 115, ¶ 10, 910 N.W.2d 896 ). Joseph Schrodt did not raise the issue that his request to continue the trial should be granted because he was not given an opportunity to respond to his attorney's motion to withdraw. Nor does Joseph Schrodt argue that the district court should not have granted the motion to withdraw. Therefore, the issue of whether the district court complied with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 was not preserved for this appeal.
[¶8] "The district court has broad discretion over the progress and conduct of a trial, and the determination whether to grant a continuance lies within the sound discretion of the district court." Lund v. Lund , 2011 ND 53, ¶ 7, 795 N.W.2d 318 (citations omitted). This Court will not reverse a district court's decision to deny a motion for a continuance absent an abuse of discretion. Carroll v. Carroll , 2017 ND 73, ¶ 11, 892 N.W.2d 173. "The court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination." Wilson v. Wilson , 2014 ND 199, ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 105 (citation omitted).
[¶9] A motion for a continuance made after a notice of trial has been issued is governed by N.D.R.Civ.P. 40(d) :
A party seeking a continuance must make a request to continue a trial within 14 days after receiving notice of trial from the court. The trial judge scheduled to hear the case must approve any request for continuance. If unavoidable circumstances are shown, the trial judge may waive the 14-day requirement.
Under the North Dakota Rules of Court, motions for continuance "shall be promptly filed as soon as the grounds therefor are known and will be granted only for good cause shown, either by a declaration or otherwise." N.D.R.Ct. 6.1(b).
[¶10] On the morning of trial, Joseph Schrodt requested a continuance because he did not have an attorney. Joseph Schrodt acknowledged that he was aware that his attorney had withdrawn but was not aware of the hearing held. When asked why he did not request a continuance a week prior to trial, Joseph Schrodt replied that he should have but he "had a lot on his plate." When asked what efforts he made to get an attorney, Joseph Schrodt explained that he had called several attorneys, but there was conflict with all of them and the closest one was in Fargo. The district court denied his request reasoning that this was his third attorney and questioned whether he would have one even if a continuance was granted. The court noted that Joseph Schrodt had known for at least a week that his attorney was withdrawing and that a lot of work goes into trial preparation including witnesses traveling for trial. Additionally, the court noted the request was untimely. Under the circumstances in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joseph Schrodt's request for a continuance.
[¶11] Joseph Schrodt argues the district court erred in its valuation of his tools, racecar, racecar parts, and a vehicle because the court accepted Katie Schrodt's values listed in her property and debt listing without any other evidence and because the court stated Joseph Schrodt would be in the best position to know the value of the assets.
[¶12] We will not reverse a district court's findings on valuation of marital property unless they are clearly erroneous. Lee v. Lee , 2019 ND 142, ¶ 6, 927 N.W.2d 104 (citing Corbett v. Corbett , 2001 ND 113, ¶ 12, 628 N.W.2d 312 ). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, there is no evidence to support it, or if, although there is some evidence to support it, on the entire evidence the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Kautzman v. Kautzman, 1998 ND 192, ¶ 8, 585 N.W.2d 561 (citing Gierke v. Gierke , 1998 ND 100, ¶ 15, 578 N.W.2d 522 ). "[A] trial court, having the opportunity to observe demeanor and credibility, is in a far better position than an appellate court in ascertaining the true facts regarding property value." Hitz v. Hitz , 2008 ND 58, ¶ 13, 746 N.W.2d 732 (quoting Hoverson v. Hoverson , 2001 ND 124, ¶ 13, 629 N.W.2d 573 ). "A marital property valuation within the range of the evidence is not clearly erroneous." Hitz , at ¶ 13 (quoting Hoverson , at ¶ 13 ).
[¶13] Here, the district court accepted the values provided by Katie Schrodt for the 2008 GMC vehicle, tools, racecar, and racecar parts because Joseph Schrodt did not present evidence or testimony regarding the values nor did he present evidence or testimony that contradicted Katie Schrodt's values. The court noted it had a difficult time making an accurate valuation of the overall marital estate due to Joseph Schrodt's non-compliance with Katie Schrodt's discovery requests and his failure to follow court orders. The court found Katie Schrodt and her witnesses to be credible and that Joseph Schrodt's testimony was conflicting, incomplete and lacked credibility. "A trial court may accept the valuations submitted by one party, or weigh one party's value testimony more heavily." Peterson v. Peterson , 1999 ND 191, ¶ 14, 600 N.W.2d 851 (citing Braun v. Braun , 532 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1995) ). The record supports the district court's valuations and the valuations are not clearly erroneous.
[¶14] Joseph Schrodt argues the parenting time implemented by the district court is clearly erroneous because it denies the child the right to maintain a "parent-child relationship that is beneficial" to the child.
[¶15] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2), the district court must "grant such rights of parenting time as will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Updike v. Updike
-
Updike v. Updike
...on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Schrodt v. Schrodt, 2022 ND 64, ¶ 19, 971 N.W.2d 861 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting Eubanks v. Fisketjon, 2021 ND 124, ¶ 6, 962 N.W.2d 427). [¶6] Section 75-02-04.1......