Blomdahl v. Blomdahl
796 N.W.2d 649
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Divorce judgment (Feb. 1993) awarded Mary 90% interest in Russell's retirement accounts; stipulation incorporated by judgment.
- Mary did not enforce or renew the judgment for years; demanded payment in 2009 after Russell allegedly shifted or depleted funds.
- District court held the judgment was unenforceable after ten years without renewal, so contempt under 14-05-25.1 could not be maintained.
- Court treated contempt under 14-05-25.1 as a special proceeding, not an action on the judgment under 28-01-15(1), so the ten-year limit did not govern the contempt remedy.
- Majority affirmed the denial of contempt; dissent would hold the ten-year limit tolled until pay status, allowing contempt post-2003.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt under 14-05-25.1 is an action on the judgment for 28-01-15(1). | Blomdahl argued contempt is within 28-01-15(1) and time-barred. | Respondent contends contempt is a special proceeding not subject to that statute. | Contempt is a special proceeding, not an action on the judgment; ten-year limit not controlling. |
| Whether the divorce judgment awarding Mary’s retirement interest expired, preventing contempt. | Mary contends the judgment remained enforceable via contempt. | Jurisdiction ended as the judgment expired after ten years without renewal. | The judgment expired after ten years without renewal; contempt not permissible under the majority view. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seablom v. Seablom, 348 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1984) (civil contempt not proper for enforcement of property distribution prior to 14-05-25.1)
- Leifert v. Wolfer, 24 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1946) (execution based on an unrenewed divorce judgment may be extinguished; continuation of alimony can differ from property liens)
- Fuson v. Schaible, 494 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1992) (ten-year renewal principles apply to judgments for property division; timing matters for enforcement)
- Giese v. Giese, 676 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 2004) (former wife's right to retirement benefits via divorce decree; contempt for willful violation)
