Dieterle v. Dieterle
2016 ND 36
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Shannon Dieterle and Angela (Hansen) divorced; district court ordered sale of their ranch and issued a parenting plan in a December 26, 2014 order.
- The court expressed credibility concerns about Hansen and found her conduct during exchanges harmed the child and risked parental alienation.
- The December 2014 order required Hansen to sign a listing agreement to sell the ranch and set parenting-time rules; Hansen unsuccessfully sought a stay and failed to perfect an appeal of that order.
- Dieterle filed an order to show cause, alleging Hansen refused to cooperate in exchanging personal property, refused to sign a listing agreement (delaying sale of the ranch), and violated the parenting plan.
- After an evidentiary contempt hearing (Hansen proceeded pro se), the district court found Hansen in contempt, awarded Dieterle monetary deductions from Hansen’s share of sale proceeds (including $5,577.50 for personal property and $2,500 in attorney fees), authorized Dieterle exclusive possession to sell the ranch, and ordered Hansen removed.
- Hansen appealed, raising due-process and merits-based challenges to the contempt findings; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dieterle) | Defendant's Argument (Hansen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could hold Hansen in contempt while her appeal and stay request were pending | The court retained jurisdiction and may enforce its orders pending appeal; Hansen must obey orders unless stayed | Hansen argued pending appeal/stay request prevented contempt finding | Court: pending appeal or denied stay does not shield disobedience; contempt proper (appeal/stay were denied/dismissed) |
| Whether Hansen was denied due process because she was not told the hearing would be evidentiary | Notice and an order to show cause provided adequate notice of contempt proceeding | Hansen said she was not advised it would be an evidentiary hearing and lacked opportunity to prepare | Court: notice was sufficient; she had the application, affidavit, and chance to be heard; due process claim rejected |
| Whether contempt finding required willful, inexcusable breach (i.e., Hansen made good-faith efforts) | Dieterle argued Hansen’s actions constituted willful noncompliance and delays in sale/exchange | Hansen maintained she made good-faith efforts to comply and disputing terms of sale justified conduct | Court: record supports willful, inexcusable noncompliance; district court did not abuse discretion in finding contempt |
| Whether eviction/authorization of exclusive possession and sale terms were improper because sale terms were erroneous or she tried to sell in good faith | Dieterle sought enforcement and ability to proceed with sale; offset costs from Hansen’s share | Hansen contended terms were clearly erroneous and she attempted to sell in good faith | Court: enforcement and giving Dieterle possession to effectuate sale were within court’s discretion; contempt remedies appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dieterle v. Dieterle, 830 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 2013) (prior divorce judgment and remand for parenting plan)
- Holkesvig v. Welte, 809 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 2012) (court retains contempt jurisdiction while appeal pending; orders must be obeyed absent stay)
- Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (N.D. 1999) (party must comply with order pending appeal; contempt for disobedience)
- Balvitsch v. Dakota Burger N Fries, Corp., 842 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2014) (procedural requirements for remedial contempt sanctions; notice and hearing required)
- Spilovoy v. Spilovoy, 488 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 1992) (civil contempt requires clear and satisfactory proof and willful violation)
- Woodward v. Woodward, 776 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 2009) (appellate review of contempt is for abuse of discretion)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and allow preparation)