930 N.W.2d 95
N.D.2019Background
- Jevne and Hoffman share one child; they divorced in Texas in 2017 with Hoffman awarded primary residential responsibility.
- Hoffman moved to North Dakota in 2018 and registered the Texas custody decree in Morton County as a foreign child custody determination.
- Jevne moved for an order to show cause (contempt) in Aug. 2018, alleging Hoffman willfully violated the decree (denied access to health/education info, communication with child, and reimbursement for house-related debts).
- Each party filed a brief and affidavit; Jevne did not request an oral evidentiary hearing under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3).
- The district court denied the show-cause motion without a hearing, finding Jevne failed to prove willful, inexcusable noncompliance and that some of the communication issues were attributable to Jevne’s conduct.
- Jevne appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoffman) | Defendant's Argument (Jevne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying an order to show cause without an evidentiary hearing | Court may decide on briefs; no hearing required absent a timely request for oral argument; Hoffman disputed contempt allegations | Jevne argued the court should have held an evidentiary hearing because Hoffman willfully violated the divorce decree and contempt process requires a show-cause hearing | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; hearing not required because Jevne did not request oral argument and failed to meet burden on the submitted record |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwalk v. Schwalk, 841 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 2014) (Rule 3.2 does not require a hearing on every motion)
- State v. White, 907 N.W.2d 765 (N.D. 2018) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Rath v. Rath, 878 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 2016) (district court has broad discretion in contempt decisions)