State v. White, 20170263
Decision Date | 22 February 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 20170263,20170263 |
Citation | 907 N.W.2d 765 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Cassie A. Loibl, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Jeremy L. WHITE, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Tressie C. Brazil, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee, Cassie A. Loibl.
Jessica L. Busse, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Jeremy White appeals a district court order denying his motions for relief from a judgment relating to primary residential responsibility and for contempt against Cassie Loibl. We affirm, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s motions.
[¶2] White and Loibl have one child together, born in 2015. In March 2016, the State sued White to decide issues of child support, health insurance and who could claim the child for income tax purposes. White was incarcerated when the State filed its complaint. The Barnes County Sheriff personally served White with the complaint at the Barnes County Correctional Facility.
[¶3] In May 2016, Loibl moved to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Loibl served White with the motion by mailing it to the Barnes County Correctional Facility and two other addresses in Valley City.
[¶4] White did not respond to either the State’s complaint or Loibl’s motion. The district court entered a judgment awarding Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making responsibility of the child. The court awarded White supervised parenting time and ordered him to pay $575 per month in child support.
[¶5] In February 2017, White moved for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and for contempt against Loibl. White claimed he did not respond to Loibl’s motion because he did not receive the motion. He stated he was released from jail on March 4, 2016, and did not reside at the addresses to which Loibl mailed the motion.
[¶6] After an April 2017 hearing the district court denied White’s motions. The court found White failed to provide Loibl his address after she requested it from him and did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from the judgment.
[¶7] White argues the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for relief from the judgment. He claims extraordinary circumstances justify relief because he did not receive Loibl’s motion.
[¶8] We review a district court’s denial of a motion for relief from a final judgment or order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Anderson v. Baker , 2015 ND 269, ¶ 7, 871 N.W.2d 830. A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, if it misinterprets or misapplies the law or if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. Id.
[¶9] Rule 60, N.D.R.Civ.P., governs relief from a final judgment or order:
[¶10] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(3)(C), service of a motion may be made on a person by mailing a document to the person’s last known address.
[¶11] White claimed multiple grounds under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) entitled him to relief from the judgment. He alleged he was entitled to relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), relating to mistake, because Loibl could have mistakenly or inadvertently mailed her motion to the incorrect address. He argued N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), relating to misrepresentation or fraud, afforded him relief because Loibl knew where he was residing and purposely mailed her motion to the incorrect address. He also contended N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) entitled him to relief because extraordinary circumstances exist in this case. See Meier v. Meier , 2014 ND 127, ¶ 7, 848 N.W.2d 253 ( ).
[¶12] At his motion hearing White testified he was living with his girlfriend after his release from jail. He testified Loibl was aware of that and should have mailed her motion to his girlfriend’s address. He also admitted that Loibl asked for his address before she filed her motion but he did not provide it to her. He testified he would have given Loibl his address if he had known she was moving for primary residential responsibility. At the conclusion of the hearing on White’s motion, the district court discussed White’s argument:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allery v. Whitebull
...deliberate choices, and a party is obligated to take legal steps to protect his or her own interests." State v. White , 2018 ND 58, ¶ 14, 907 N.W.2d 765. A disregard of legal process is not excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). State v. $33,000.00 U.S. Currency , 2008 ND 96, ¶ 14, 748 N.W.......
-
Flaten v. Couture
...and parties are obligated to take legal steps to protect their own interests. Kautzman, at ¶ 14 ; State v. White , 2018 ND 58, ¶ 14, 907 N.W.2d 765. The moving party has the burden to establish sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the judgment. Kukla v. Kukla , 2013 ND 192, ¶ 2......
- State v. Groce
-
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. v. Johnson
...and parties are obligated to take legal steps to protect their own interests. Kautzman , at ¶ 14 ; State v. White , 2018 ND 58, ¶ 14, 907 N.W.2d 765. The moving party has the burden to establish sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of the judgment. Kukla v. Kukla , 2013 ND 192, ¶ ......