Brooks v. Brooks, 2015 ND 158

Roy and Sarah Brooks divorced in Sept. 2014; the district court approved a stipulation awarding Sarah primary residential responsibility and Roy reasonable parenting time.
In Jan. 2015 Roy (self-represented) moved to modify primary residential responsibility less than two years after the original order, alleging the children’s environment was harmful (mouse problem, mold, poor sleeping arrangements) and expressing concern about Sarah’s romantic relationships.
Sarah opposed the motion on procedural grounds (arguing noncompliance with Rule 3.2) but filed no counter-affidavit or evidentiary rebuttal to Roy’s factual allegations.
The district court denied Roy’s motion without making specific factual findings or addressing the substance of his allegations, and its order simply quoted the statutory standard and criticized Roy’s lack of legal knowledge.
Roy appealed, arguing the court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing and failing to make findings of fact to explain the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Roy’s motion to modify custody	Sarah argued Roy’s motion failed to meet procedural requirements and should be dismissed without a hearing	Roy argued his affidavit alleged facts (health hazards, sleeping conditions, emotional harm) sufficient to establish a prima facie case and require a hearing	Court reversed and remanded because the district court failed to make findings explaining why it denied the motion and therefore improperly foreclosed review
Whether the district court’s order contained adequate findings to permit appellate review	Sarah implicitly relied on procedural defect as basis for denial	Roy argued the order lacked specific, detailed findings addressing whether his allegations, if true, would satisfy the statutory exception to the two-year bar	Court held the district court’s terse order did not state whether it rejected Roy’s allegations as insufficient or rejected them as not credible; lack of findings hampered appellate review and required remand

Green v. Green, 772 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing)
Kartes v. Kartes, 831 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 2013) (district court must accept truth of movant’s allegations when evaluating prima facie case)
Sweeney v. Kirby, 826 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 2013) (affidavits stating only conclusions are not competent to establish a prima facie case)
Jensen v. Jensen, 835 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2013) (when movant’s allegations are supported by competent evidence, court may deny only if counter-affidavits conclusively negate credibility or allegations are facially insufficient)
Hankey v. Hankey, 861 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 2015) (remand required where district court failed to make specific, detailed findings)