Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 949 N.W.2d 824

Jacqueline and Jeremy Hoffarth agreed to divorce terms at a court hearing (each with counsel); the court adopted their stipulation and entered judgment on Dec. 28, 2018.
No Rule 8.3 property/debt listing or discovery was done before the judgment; Jeremy later complained about asset valuation and lack of disclosures.
On Dec. 20, 2019, with new counsel, Jeremy moved for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), alleging mistake, surprise, misrepresentation, and extraordinary circumstances.
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion (served Feb. 3, 2020), found the motion frivolous, and awarded Jacqueline attorney fees; Jeremy moved for reconsideration and submitted newspaper articles about Jacqueline’s professional ethics.
The district court denied reconsideration on Apr. 7, 2020, again awarded fees, and Jeremy filed a notice of appeal on Apr. 28, 2020.
The Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Feb. 2020 Rule 60(b) order (untimely), but had jurisdiction over the Apr. 7 order denying reconsideration and affirmed that denial and the fee awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hoffarth)	Defendant's Argument (Hoffarth)	Held
Jurisdiction/timeliness of appeal of denial of initial Rule 60(b) motion	The appeal of the Feb. 3, 2020 order is untimely; timely notice required within 60 days	Jeremy effectively tolled the appeal period by filing reconsideration	Appeal of Feb. 3 order untimely; reconsideration does not continue tolling per Larson, so Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over that appeal
Denial of relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and (3) (mistake, surprise, fraud)	Motion was untimely (filed >1 year after entry) and no evidence of mistake/ fraud	Jeremy argued mistake/surprise (failure to list property, no discovery) and new evidence impeached Jacqueline’s credibility	Denial affirmed: claims under (1) and (3) untimely and court did not abuse discretion
Denial of relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) (extraordinary circumstances)	60(b)(6) invoked for extraordinary relief given Rule 8.3 failure and new credibility evidence	Jeremy argued newspaper articles constituted surprise and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief	Denial affirmed: 60(b)(6) not met—newspaper articles didn’t alter compliance with procedural rules or show extraordinary circumstances
Award of attorney fees for frivolous post-judgment motions	Fee award justified to deter successive frivolous motions	Jeremy contended (conclusorily) the fee award was an abuse	Fee award affirmed; Jeremy provided no adequate briefing to overturn the award

Kautzman v. Doll, 905 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 2018) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
Larson v. Larson, 653 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 2002) (motion to reconsider an order disposing of a tolling post-trial motion does not further toll appeal period)
Glinka v. Maytag Corp., 90 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1996) (policy favoring finality of judgments and discouraging repeated tolling)
Greywind v. State, 869 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2015) (motions for reconsideration treated as Rule 59(j) or Rule 60 motions)
Hildebrand v. Stolz, 888 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(6) reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
Austin v. Towne, 560 N.W.2d 895 (N.D. 1997) (denial of untimely Rule 60 motion not an abuse of discretion)
Leverson v. Leverson, 801 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2011) (attorney fees may remedy abuse from successive frivolous post-judgment motions)
White v. Altru Health System, 746 N.W.2d 173 (N.D. 2008) (North Dakota does not formally recognize motions to reconsider)
City of Wahpeton v. Drake-Henne, Inc., 228 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 1975) (Rule 60(b)(6) not available where other subdivisions suffice)