Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed post-judgment proceedings involving a creditor’s attempt to attach assets of a trust, prohibit the sale or transfer of property, compel discovery, and maintain a lis pendens. The court held that the trust’s spendthrift provision protected the beneficiary’s interest from the creditor’s judgment, that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint a receiver, and that cancellation of the lis pendens was proper. The court affirmed the district court’s order.

Holdings

1. The appeal was properly before the Supreme Court because the prior appeal had resolved the dispositive issues and the present order resolved the related issues in the separate post-judgment proceeding.
2. Southeastern's judgment did not fall within the statutory exceptions to the trust's valid spendthrift provision, so the trust property was not subject to attachment to satisfy the judgment against David Herzig.
3. A spendthrift provision protecting a beneficiary's interest from debts, contracts, obligations, liabilities, or torts applies to a debt imposed by a judgment even if the word "judgment" does not appear expressly.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint a receiver.
5. The district court retained jurisdiction to cancel the lis pendens while the prior appeal was pending, and cancellation was proper because the post-judgment enforcement action did not directly affect title to or possession of the real property.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel discovery because the subpoena was procedurally defective and sought discovery from a party through the wrong mechanism.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal from the post-judgment district court order was properly before the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the trust's spendthrift provision protected the trust property and David Herzig's beneficial interest from attachment to satisfy Southeastern's judgment.
3. Whether the district court was required to appoint a receiver under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-25.
4. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to cancel the lis pendens while a prior appeal was pending and whether the lis pendens was legally proper.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to compel discovery sought by subpoena.

Disposition

affirmed