Coffman v. State
2011 ND 209
N.D.2011Background
- Plaintiff Joan Warnke filed for divorce; David Warnke admitted service but did not answer.
- Default judgment was entered after a second default hearing at which David did not appear.
- Court awarded Joan primary custody, set David’s child support, and divided property and debts.
- David later moved to vacate under Rule 60(b), alleging lack of proper notice for the second hearing.
- District court denied the motion to vacate, finding actual notice; panel affirmed the denial on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate properly denied given alleged inadequate notice? | Warnke argues proper notice was not provided for the second hearing. | Warnke contends he did not receive notice for the second hearing. | No abuse of discretion; notice deemed adequate. |
| Was there sufficient proof to sustain the default judgment on the merits? | Warnke contends the court lacked proper proof to grant relief. | Warnke asserts the court overstepped by relying on disputed stipulation and affidavits. | District court did not abuse its discretion; sufficient proof supported relief. |
| Should the district court’s property division be reviewed on appeal from denial of vacatur? | — | — | Not reviewable on this appeal; affirmed without addressing property distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luger v. Luger, 2009 ND 84 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) vacatur; cannot exceed pleadings' relief)
- State v. $33,000.00 United States Currency, 2008 ND 96 (2008) (notice and service standards; voidable default judgments)
- Riemers, 2008 ND 191 (2008) (presumption of receipt of mailed notice; rebuttable by evidence)
- Dethloff v. Dethloff, 1998 ND 45 (1998) (default judgment and required Ruff-Fischer findings; equity considerations)
- Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843 (1994) (default judgment limitations; cannot exceed pleadings' relief)
- Crawford v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833 (1994) (unconscionable judgments may be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6))
- Bell v. Bell, 540 N.W.2d 602 (1995) (dividing marital property; disparities must be explained)
- Murdoff v. Murdoff, 517 N.W.2d 402 (1994) (favoring merits-based judgments when fair)
- Bender v. Liebelt, 303 N.W.2d 316 (1981) (prefer merits over default when fair)