Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Peterson

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a default judgment against Randall O. Peterson for a credit card debt owed to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. The court held that Peterson was not entitled to relief under North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), rejected his due process and judicial-impartiality arguments, and declined to consider certain jurisdictional and filing-related claims.

Holdings

1. A motion seeking relief from a default judgment must be treated as a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), regardless of the motion's title.
2. The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a default judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion here.
3. The district court did not violate Peterson's due process rights by entering default judgment without holding the requested additional hearing because Peterson had notice and a meaningful opportunity to answer and present objections but failed to do so.
4. A vague assertion that the judge's use of credit cards created an appearance of impropriety did not establish a basis for recusal or Rule 60(b) relief.
5. Rule 60(b) does not provide relief from a party's deliberate decision not to serve and file an answer raising available defenses.
6. The court would not consider Peterson's personal-jurisdiction argument because he did not raise it in his motion for reconsideration or otherwise preserve it below.
7. The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Citibank's civil claim.
8. Peterson's claim that the district court obstructed his filings was not reviewable because he did not use N.D.R.App.P. 10(h) to supplement the allegedly incomplete record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Peterson's motion for reconsideration should be treated as a motion for relief from the default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b) relief based on the absence of a hearing and alleged denial of due process.
3. Whether the district court judge's alleged use of credit cards created an appearance of partiality requiring recusal or relief from the judgment.
4. Whether Peterson's substantive defenses entitled him to relief from the default judgment despite his failure to answer the complaint.
5. Whether Peterson's personal-jurisdiction argument could be considered for the first time on appeal.
6. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Citibank's civil claim.
7. Whether Peterson's claim that the district court obstructed his filings was reviewable without a motion to supplement the appellate record.

Disposition

affirmed