Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court considered whether a state district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to decide custody of a child whose mother and child were enrolled members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The court held that the state court properly treated the tribal court’s dismissal as a declination of jurisdiction and therefore had jurisdiction to decide custody. It also upheld a $40,000 cash award and a five-year restraint against interference with a distributed insurance business, but concluded that the geographic scope of the restraint had to be limited under N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the North Dakota district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make an initial child-custody determination when the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation was the child's home state and the tribal court had dismissed its action with prejudice.
- Whether a divorce court may restrain one spouse from interfering with a business awarded to the other spouse as part of the equitable distribution of marital property.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding Richard Kelly $40,000 as a sanction for litigation misconduct and requiring payment within 90 days.
Holdings
- A state district court has subject matter jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-12(1)(b) to make an initial child-custody determination when the child's home-state tribal court has dismissed its proceeding with prejudice, because that dismissal may be treated as a declination of jurisdiction, provided the statutory significant-connection and substantial-evidence requirements are satisfied.
- A divorce court may restrain one spouse's interference with a business awarded to the other spouse when the restraint is necessary to protect the goodwill and make the property distribution effective, but the restraint must conform to the geographic limitations imposed by N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06(1).
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Richard Kelly $40,000 as a sanction for Karol Kelly's willful litigation misconduct that substantially increased his legal fees and expenses, payable within 90 days of judgment.
Key quotations
“In the face of an existing Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court decision explicitly dismissing the tribal court action with prejudice, we conclude the state court did not err in effectively treating the dismissal with prejudice as a declination of jurisdiction by the tribal court and in making an initial “temporary” child custody determination that was consistent with N.D.C.C. § 14 — 14.1—12(l)(b).” (806 N.W.2d at 141)
“We conclude the district court had authority to restrain Karol Kelly’s interference with Kelly Insurance to protect the goodwill of the company under the circumstances in this case.” (806 N.W.2d at 144)
Factual background
Richard and Karol Kelly married in 2003 and lived with their child on land owned by Karol on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. Richard later moved to Bismarck, relocated his insurance business there, and commenced a divorce action in North Dakota state court; Karol answered and filed counterclaims. Karol also pursued proceedings in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court, whose divorce action was initially dismissed with prejudice, while the district court found that Karol had competed with and interfered with Richard's insurance business and had engaged in conduct that increased his litigation expenses.
Procedural history
Richard Kelly commenced a divorce action in North Dakota state district court. After earlier appellate proceedings held that the state court had concurrent jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage and remanded for determination of child-custody jurisdiction, the district court found the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation was the child's home state but treated the tribal court's dismissal with prejudice as a declination of jurisdiction. The district court entered a final divorce judgment, and Karol Kelly appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but remanded to limit the geographic scope of the restraining order.
Remand instructions
Remand for application of the geographic limitations of N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06(1) to the restraining order against Karol Kelly.