Vormestrand v. Craig

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an amended judgment awarding Dwayne Vormestrand primary residential responsibility for the parties’ minor child and an order denying Khilyn Craig’s motion for a new trial or reconsideration. The court held that, although the district court misinterpreted the domestic-violence best-interests factor, the error was harmless because the court did not find credible evidence of domestic violence. The court also rejected Craig’s claims concerning other best-interests factors, her self-represented status, use of notes while testifying, the automatic modification provision, and surprise arising from her relocation to Texas.

Holdings

1. A motion for a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(6) is committed to the district court's sound discretion, and the appellate court reviews the denial only for abuse of discretion.
2. Even when evidence of domestic violence is insufficient to trigger the rebuttable presumption against awarding residential responsibility to the perpetrating parent, credible evidence of domestic violence must still be considered as a best-interests factor.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that factor (e), concerning each parent's willingness and ability to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent, favored Vormestrand.
4. A district court does not abuse its discretion by requiring a witness to testify from memory without notes when the witness does not establish a need to use the notes to refresh recollection.
5. Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural rules as represented litigants and are not entitled to relaxed judicial standards, special treatment, or greater judicial assistance.
6. When a dispositive motion fully resolves all pending claims, the district court need not address other pending motions rendered moot by that final disposition, regardless of when those motions were filed.
7. A party is not entitled to a new trial for accident or surprise when the party knew the relevant motions were pending and the challenged ruling was based on evidence and circumstances foreseeable from the proceedings.
8. Arguments under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) that are not presented on appeal are waived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Craig's motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence or a decision against the law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(6), particularly concerning best-interests factors (j) and (e).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on alleged irregularities in the proceedings, including requiring Craig to testify without notes and declining to provide special assistance to her as a self-represented litigant and alleged domestic-violence survivor.
3. Whether the district court was required to decide the validity of the automatic modification provision before determining residential responsibility.
4. Whether Craig was entitled to a new trial based on accident or surprise under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(3) because the court considered her relocation while related motions were pending.
5. Whether Craig's unbriefed arguments for reconsideration under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) were waived.

Disposition

affirmed