Berry v. Berry, 903 N.W.2d 68

Ronald and Phyllis Berry divorced in 2008; the decree allocated Ronald’s military retirement benefits.
Phyllis moved for reconsideration of the allocation shortly after the 2008 judgment; the court denied reconsideration.
In 2014–2015 both parties filed post-judgment motions about the retirement allocation; the court denied Ronald’s initial Rule 60 request for lack of adequate pleadings but gave him an opportunity to submit proper materials.
At an order-to-show-cause hearing in November 2015 a proposed QDRO was presented; Phyllis asked the court to sign it and expressly requested the court retain jurisdiction over the retirement allocation; the court inserted a handwritten retention-of-jurisdiction notation and later entered a corrected amended judgment adjusting the allocation formula.
The corrected judgment changed the formula to reflect the court’s original intent (using 21 years relationship / 24 years service and a 30% REDUX percentage rather than 26 years/40%), and the court denied contempt sanctions and attorney fees related to contempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ronald)	Defendant's Argument (Phyllis)	Held
Whether the district court could modify the final property division (military retirement allocation) without Ronald satisfying N.D.R.Civ.P. 60 procedural requirements	Ronald had been litigating the issue and had filed informal papers the court treated as pleadings; the court gave him leave and was addressing the matter	Phyllis argued the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the final property division because Ronald failed to meet Rule 60 requirements	Court held no abuse of discretion: Phyllis’s request that the court retain jurisdiction constituted consent to continuing jurisdiction, so modification was permissible
Whether the corrected amended judgment’s change to the allocation formula was erroneous (clear-error review of property division)	The correction reflected the court’s original intent and corrected overstated service years and REDUX percentage	Phyllis contended the modification was improper and that the Rule 60 procedure was not satisfied	Court held the correction was not clearly erroneous; it corrected mistakes (service years and percentage) to match the court’s intent
Whether Phyllis is entitled to attorney fees for a contempt motion	Ronald (via court order) was addressing the issues and sanctions were not appropriate at that time	Phyllis sought fees tied to an application for contempt	Court affirmed denial of attorney fees; no subsequent contempt motion was filed after the court declined sanctions

Ebach v. Ebach, 700 N.W.2d 684 (N.D. 2005) (a district court lacks continuing jurisdiction over a final property distribution)
Kopp v. Kopp, 622 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 2001) (final property division may be modified only under the same grounds as other judgments, e.g., Rule 60)
Knutson v. Knutson, 639 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 2002) (standard of appellate review for Rule 60(b) relief is abuse of discretion)
Striefel v. Striefel, 689 N.W.2d 415 (N.D. 2004) (property division reviewed for clear error)
Lynnes v. Lynnes, 747 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 2008) (definition of clearly erroneous factual findings)