Anderson v. Baker
2015 ND 269
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Anderson and Baker share a child (born 2010). A June 2011 stipulated judgment required Baker to provide health insurance for the child or reimburse Anderson for monthly insurance costs and to pay 50% of uninsured medical expenses within 30 days of request.
- Anderson requested reimbursement in July 2013 for monthly insurance and half of uncovered medical bills; she filed a contempt motion in January 2014 alleging Baker had not reimbursed as required.
- Baker later reimbursed Anderson in February 2014 for uncovered medical expenses and part of the monthly insurance costs.
- After a hearing the district court found Baker in contempt for failing to timely reimburse, entered a money judgment for Anderson, and awarded $1,750 in attorney’s fees.
- Baker moved for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 (reconsideration); a different judge denied the motion. Baker appealed only the denial of the Rule 60 motion, not the contempt order itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Baker's Rule 60 motion | Relief warranted; court should reconsider and vacate contempt and fee award | No abuse of discretion; motion failed to identify grounds entitling relief | Court affirmed denial: Baker failed to show abuse of discretion or exceptional circumstances for Rule 60 relief |
| Whether Baker may challenge the underlying contempt order via the Rule 60 appeal | Argued underlying contempt and fee award were erroneous | Contended the contempt order was not before the court because it was not appealed | Court held Baker cannot attack the unappealed contempt order via this appeal of the Rule 60 denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Shull v. Walcker, 770 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Hartleib v. Simes, 776 N.W.2d 217 (N.D. 2009) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Sturdevant v. SAE Warehouse, Inc., 310 N.W.2d 749 (N.D. 1981) (appeal from Rule 60(b) denial cannot be used to attack underlying unappealed order)
- Meier v. Meier, 848 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 2014) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch‑all; requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Bettger v. Bettger, 280 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 1979) (relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires something more extraordinary)