951 N.W.2d 260
N.D.2020Background
- Greg and Lisa Grengs married in 2001; Greg filed for divorce in 2017.
- The parties had executed a 2014 post‑marital agreement; the district court later found it unenforceable for inadequate disclosure and duress.
- On July 9–10, 2019 the parties reached an oral settlement on the record in a telephonic hearing; the court entered judgment on September 3, 2019 reflecting those terms.
- Judgment required Greg to pay a lump sum to Lisa and to secure the payment by granting a security interest and mortgage on real estate owned by GLG Farms, LLC (of which Greg is sole owner).
- Greg did not timely pay or execute the mortgage, was found in contempt, and paid $150,000 to purge contempt; he appealed and filed a Rule 60(b) motion while the appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grengs) | Defendant's Argument (Lisa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction to decide Rule 60(b) motion after appeal filed | Court had jurisdiction due to this Court’s limited remand for sale of assets and contempt matters | District court lacked jurisdiction while appeal pending and no leave was granted by this Court | The court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the Rule 60(b) motion; dismissal was improper to the extent the court purported to dismiss while lacking jurisdiction but denial on jurisdictional grounds affirmed |
| Enforceability of oral settlement given prior ruling that post‑marital agreement was unenforceable | Settlement should not be enforced because it relied on a prior unenforceable post‑marital agreement | Oral stipulation on the record is binding; plaintiff failed to properly raise merits below | Court will not address merits because challenge to settlement was not properly raised below; issue not considered for first time on appeal |
| Competency to consent to settlement at telephonic hearing | Grengs lacked competence to consent, so stipulation is unenforceable | Both parties, represented by counsel, stated assent on the record; stipulations are binding when entered in court presence | Not reached on the merits; procedural default (failure to seek relief below/remand) bars consideration on appeal |
| Contempt for failing to execute mortgage on LLC‑held property | Cannot be held in contempt because the property is titled in GLG Farms, LLC and charging‑order law governs | Greg is sole owner of GLG Farms, LLC, controls the LLC, offered no evidence he lacked ability to encumber LLC property; contempt proper | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion finding contempt because Grengs failed to show inability to comply; charging‑order statute inapplicable to contempt question |
Key Cases Cited
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2011 ND 7, 793 N.W.2d 371 (district court generally loses jurisdiction when notice of appeal is filed)
- State ex rel. Heitkamp v. Family Life Servs., Inc., 2000 ND 166, 616 N.W.2d 826 (Supreme Court’s jurisdiction attaches on appeal; trial court ordinarily has no further jurisdiction)
- J.S.S. v. P.M.Z., 429 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 1988) (orders entered after appeal ordinarily void for lack of jurisdiction)
- Aaker v. Aaker, 338 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983) (oral stipulations in court presence are generally binding)
- Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107, 766 N.W.2d 477 (settlement challenged — must show contract‑based justification to set aside; consider duress, fraud, unconscionability)
- Werven v. Werven, 2016 ND 60, 877 N.W.2d 9 (obligor who lacks ownership/control of property can show inability to comply and avoid contempt)
- Kettle Butte Trucking LLC v. Kelly, 2018 ND 110, 910 N.W.2d 882 (civil contempt requires willful violation; complainant must clearly and satisfactorily prove contempt)
- PHI Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Johnston Law Office, P.C., 2016 ND 114, 881 N.W.2d 216 (standard of review for contempt findings; trial court’s discretion)