Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court addresses appeals from an order designating Allen Betz and Timothy Betz as vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions. The court holds that the district court judge lacked authority under North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 58 to issue the order against Allen Betz because she was not the presiding judge, while Timothy Betz remained subject to an earlier pre-filing order. The court affirms in part, vacates in part, dismisses in part, remands for further proceedings, and awards attorney’s fees and double costs.

Holdings

1. The Betzes could not challenge the 2008 order because their notices of appeal identified only the September 30, 2021 order; in any event, an appeal from the 2008 order would have been untimely.
2. A pre-filing order under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 must be issued by the presiding judge of the judicial district. Because Judge Weiler was not the presiding judge, the district court abused its discretion by issuing the pre-filing order against Allen Betz.
3. The district court's failure to expressly rule on Allen Betz's Rule 60(b) motion constituted a denial, which the Supreme Court affirmed.
4. The denial of leave to file was not appealable, so Timothy Betz's appeal on that issue was dismissed.
5. The Trustees were awarded $500 in attorney's fees against Timothy Betz and double costs against both appellants because the relevant arguments were frivolous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Betzes could challenge the district court's 2008 order reforming the trust in this appeal from the 2021 pre-filing order.
2. Whether Judge Weiler had authority under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 to issue a pre-filing order when she was not the presiding judge of the judicial district.
3. Whether the district court's failure to expressly rule on Allen Betz's N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion constituted a denial of that motion.
4. Whether denial of Timothy Betz's request for leave to file was appealable.
5. Whether the Trustees were entitled to attorney's fees and double costs for a frivolous appeal.

Disposition

other