Falcon v. Knudsen

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed orders denying Michael Knudsen’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility and his motion to disqualify Tessa Falcon’s counsel. The court held that Knudsen failed to establish a prima facie case showing that modification was necessary to serve the child’s best interests. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the counsel-disqualification motion without additional findings.

Holdings

1. Rule 52(a) did not require the district court to make findings of fact because the court was determining as a matter of law whether Knudsen's affidavits established a prima facie case, not weighing factual conflicts or making findings of fact.
2. Knudsen failed to establish a prima facie case for modification because he did not allege a general decline in the child's condition or that a material change in circumstances adversely affected the child, and therefore did not show that modification was necessary to serve the child's best interests.
3. The district court was not required to make findings of fact when ruling on Knudsen's motion to disqualify counsel because no applicable rule required findings for that motion.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify Falcon's counsel because Knudsen failed to establish that his prior consultation concerned the same or a substantially related matter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court was required to make specific findings of fact under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) when denying Knudsen's motion to modify primary residential responsibility.
2. Whether Knudsen established a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6.
3. Whether the district court was required to make findings of fact under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) when denying Knudsen's motion to disqualify Falcon's counsel.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify counsel under the asserted conflict-of-interest rules.

Disposition

affirmed