Gomm v. Winterfeldt, 980 N.W.2d 204

Background

Gomm (plaintiff/appellee) and Winterfeldt (defendant/appellant) share a child; original custody from Minnesota (2014) later moved to Texas jurisdiction; Gomm moved to North Dakota in 2020 and sought North Dakota proceedings.
Gomm asked North Dakota to register prior Minnesota and Texas custody orders and to assume jurisdiction; Winterfeldt filed procedural objections to registration and pursued a writ of supervision in the ND Supreme Court (denied).
The Richland County district court accepted jurisdiction, granted Gomm’s motion to modify parenting time, and denied Winterfeldt’s motion to obtain primary residential responsibility (no evidentiary hearing) after finding she failed to establish a prima facie case.
The district court declined to consider supplemental affidavits/exhibits Winterfeldt filed after Gomm’s response, relying on statute and court rule timing; Winterfeldt argued due process violation.
Winterfeldt also argued North Dakota courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Gomm failed to properly register the out-of-state orders and that the court should have held hearings on motions pending in Texas.
The ND Supreme Court denied Winterfeldt’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s rulings: modification of parenting time granted; request for primary residential responsibility denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gomm)	Defendant's Argument (Winterfeldt)	Held
1. Whether ND courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the foreign custody orders were not registered	ND had jurisdiction to modify an existing foreign custody determination under NDCC §§14-14.1-12–20; registration is not a prerequisite to exercise modification jurisdiction	Registration under NDCC §§14-14.1-25–37 was required; lack of registration deprived ND courts of jurisdiction	Held: Registration is separate from modification-jurisdiction; ND had jurisdiction to modify (affirmed)
2. Whether ND court was required to hold hearings on motions pending in Texas under law-of-the-case or obligations to the Texas court	ND court properly exercised its discretion after Texas declined to retain jurisdiction; no obligation to resolve foreign-court motions	Law of the case requires ND to resolve or defer to previously issued foreign custody order and to address Texas motions	Held: Law-of-the-case doctrine inapplicable; ND court not required to hold hearings on Texas motions
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider Winterfeldt’s supplemental affidavits/exhibits filed after Gomm’s response	Gomm relied on statute and Rule 3.2 timing; moving party not entitled to file additional evidentiary materials beyond a permissible reply	Denial to consider supplements violated procedural rules (NDCC §14‑09‑06.6(4) and N.D.R.Ct. 3.2) and deprived her of due process because Gomm raised new allegations	Held: NDCC §14‑09‑06.6(4) and N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 do not authorize additional evidentiary filings as submitted; no due process violation; court properly declined to consider them
4. Whether Winterfeldt established a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing	Winterfeldt argued multiple changes (moves, medical issue, parental misconduct/alienation, instability) justified prima facie showing	Gomm conceded some material changes (moves) but disputed that changes adversely affected the child or met the statutory prima facie standard	Held: Winterfeldt failed to plead competent, first‑hand evidence showing a general decline or adverse effect on the child; prima facie not met; no evidentiary hearing required (affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

Harshberger v. Harshberger, 724 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 2006) (framework for UCCJEA/PKPA jurisdiction and modification of foreign custody determinations)
Benson v. Benson, 667 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 2003) (jurisdictional principles under the UCCJEA)
Kelly v. Kelly, 806 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 2011) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction questions)
Kerzmann v. Kerzmann, 965 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 2021) (prima facie standard for modification of primary residential responsibility)
Kunz v. Slappy, 965 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 2021) (requirement to show a general decline or adverse effect on the child to modify custody)
Dietz v. Dietz, 733 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2007) (interplay of NDCC §14‑09‑06.6 and N.D.R.Ct. 3.2; reply briefs)
Ebertz, State v. Ebertz, 782 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2010) (rule‑statute conflict: court‑promulgated procedural rules prevail)
Curtiss v. Curtiss, 886 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2016) (due process in family law proceedings; notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)