Datz v. Dosch
2014 ND 102
| N.D. | 2014Background
- This appeal arises from a divorce case where the North Dakota Supreme Court previously reversed the district court for insufficient findings on primary residential responsibility and remanded for best-interest findings (Datz I).
- Before this Court’s mandate issued, the district court entered amended findings and an amended judgment (awarding primary residential responsibility to Dosch) on September 24–26, 2013; the Supreme Court mandate issued October 1, 2013.
- Datz filed a motion to vacate, motion to strike, and a demand for recusal after the amended judgment; the district court denied those motions on October 22, 2013, and later awarded Dosch $873.62 in attorney’s fees.
- Datz appealed, arguing lack of district court jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment pre-mandate, error in awarding primary residential responsibility, improper denial of motions and recusal, and error in awarding attorney’s fees.
- The Supreme Court held the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment before issuance of the mandate, reversed that amended judgment, reversed denial of the motion to vacate, affirmed denial of recusal, and reversed the attorney-fee award (remanding for further findings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter amended judgment before this Court’s mandate | Datz: District court lost jurisdiction upon appeal; mandate had not issued, so amended judgment is void | Dosch: Rule 41(b) mandates issuance within 21 days (Sept. 20), so district court retained jurisdiction; alternatively district court later reaffirmed judgment | Held: Rule 41(b) timeframes are not self-executing; mandate issued Oct 1 — district court lacked jurisdiction; amended judgment void and reversed; remanded for proper findings |
| Whether the court should review merits of amended judgment awarding primary residential responsibility | Datz: Amended judgment is void so merits should not be reached; alternatively district court erred on merits | Dosch: District court had jurisdiction and adopted proper findings | Held: Because amended judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, Supreme Court did not decide whether it complied with the prior mandate; remanded for new, sufficiently detailed findings consistent with Datz I |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying motion to vacate and motion to strike | Datz: Motion to vacate was correct because judgment was void; motion to strike challenged sealed exhibits filing | Dosch: Datz failed to show abuse of discretion; exhibits unrelated and conceded by Datz on appeal | Held: Denial of motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion (reversed); motion to strike not addressed because Datz conceded filing on appeal |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying demand for recusal | Datz: Adoption of Dosch’s proposed judgment pre-mandate, lack of explanation, and attorney-fee award show bias | Dosch: Denial based on Datz’s lack of credibility | Held: Denial of recusal affirmed — allegations were vague/speculative and prior adverse rulings do not establish bias |
| Whether attorney’s fees awarded to Dosch were proper | Datz: Fees improper because court misapplied law and did not follow procedures; motion to vacate was not frivolous | Dosch: Motions were frivolous; fees proper under frivolous-claim statute | Held: Award reversed — court appears to have relied on frivolous-claim authority but abused discretion in awarding fees for a motion that correctly asserted lack of jurisdiction; remanded for findings on statutory basis and appropriate amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Schirado v. Foote, 785 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 2010) (jurisdictional challenges reviewed de novo when facts undisputed)
- Matter of S.E., 820 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 2012) (trial court generally loses jurisdiction upon filing of notice of appeal)
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 833 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 2013) (mandate returns jurisdiction to trial court; limited remand for entry of judgment discussed)
- State v. Ebertz, 782 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2010) (court-rule interpretation principles)
- Vann v. Vann, 767 N.W.2d 855 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review for denial of motion to vacate)
- Reiser v. Reiser, 621 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 2001) (requirements for awarding attorney’s fees in divorce proceedings)