955 N.W.2d 117
N.D.2021Background
- Tracy served Cory with a divorce summons and complaint in Sept. 2019; Cory did not file a formal answer before later filings.
- The court ordered mediation and set a bench trial for Jan. 23, 2020.
- On Dec. 13, 2019 Tracy filed and mailed a motion for default judgment to Cory.
- The district court granted default and entered judgment on Dec. 23, 2019—before Cory’s time to respond under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2) (14 days plus 3 mailing days) had expired.
- Cory filed an answer, counterclaim, and a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief on Jan. 8, 2020; the court denied relief on May 26, 2020, calling the early entry of judgment harmless.
- Cory appealed, arguing the district court misapplied N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 by ruling before the response period expired and abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tracy) | Defendant's Argument (Cory) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by entering default judgment before the response period expired under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2) | The early ruling was harmless and Cory failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect | The judgment was entered prematurely; he was entitled to the full 14 days plus 3 mailing days to respond | Court reversed: granting judgment before expiration of the 3.2 response period was legal error and abused discretion |
| Whether the error was harmless or prejudicial | The error was harmless because Cory would not have timely responded anyway | The premature ruling deprived him of the required opportunity to respond and created no record to assess prejudice | Court held error is not necessarily harmless; absent record that any response would be futile, justice requires the opportunity to respond |
| Applicability of precedent requiring opportunity to respond under Rule 3.2 | N/A (relies on district-court factual assessment) | Relies on Jensen and other decisions holding premature rulings violate Rule 3.2 and warrant vacatur and remand | Court applied Jensen-line precedent to find misapplication of Rule 3.2 and reversed |
| Standard of review for Rule 60(b) relief and misapplication of procedural rules | District court correctly exercised discretion in denying relief | District court abused discretion by misapplying Rule 3.2 and not affording the response period | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; court concluded district court abused discretion by prematurely ruling and denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieuwenhuis v. Nieuwenhuis, 851 N.W.2d 130 (N.D. 2014) (standard of review and Rule 60(b) motion guidance)
- State v. Jensen, 939 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2020) (holding a motion cannot be decided before the Rule 3.2 response period expires)
- Burden v. State, 930 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 2019) (reversing premature rulings where response time was denied)
- Curtiss v. State, 877 N.W.2d 58 (N.D. 2016) (error where required reply time under Rule 3.2 was not afforded)
- State v. Acker, 871 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 2015) (harmless-error discussion)
- McCullough v. Swanson, 245 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 1976) (importance of respecting procedural rules)
Decision: Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the default judgment and give Cory the opportunity to respond consistent with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2).