James Valley Grain v. David
2011 ND 160
| N.D. | 2011Background
- In 1996 the State sued Wolff to establish paternity and obtain child support after Schlect and the child began receiving public assistance.
- A 1997 default judgment found Wolff as the natural father and set a child support obligation; Schlect had custody.
- In 1999 the parties stipulated to a reduction of support; an amended judgment incorporated the stipulation and the State joined as a party.
- In January 2009 Wolff and Schlect entered a stipulation for equal residential responsibility and modified support; the district court entered a second amended judgment incorporating it.
- In October 2009 the State moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the second amended judgment, asserting State status and lack of notice; no hearing was held.
- On remand, the district court remanded to the referee to clarify the reasoning for vacating the judgment; the referee held the State is a real party in interest and that the second amended judgment contains unenforceable provisions; the district court adopted the referee’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State has standing as a real party in interest | Schlect/State status shows ongoing IV-D services | State did not have continuing interest after aid termination | Yes; State has standing and is a real party in interest |
| Whether the judicial referee had jurisdiction to vacate the judgment | Referral fell within Rule 13 authority for paternity/custody matters | Referral and retroactive applicability questioned | Yes; referee had jurisdiction on remand |
| Whether the second amended judgment contains unenforceable provisions | Provisions improperly limit future modification and divert support | Provisions were valid stipulations of the parties | Yes; unenforceable provisions existed and justified vacating the judgment |
| Whether vacating the second amended judgment was proper under Rule 60(b) | Judgment was voidable due to unenforceable terms and policy | Relief not appropriate if terms were valid | Yes; order vacating the judgment affirmed |
| Whether the State’s involvement required due process notice to all parties | State was a party and entitled to notice | State’s notice not necessary | Yes; lack of notice to State violated due process |
Key Cases Cited
- R.F. v. M.M., 2010 ND 195 (2010 ND) (standing and real party in interest reviewed de novo)
- In re R.H., 2004 ND 170 (2004 ND) (IV-D and child support services compliance)
- Lee v. Lee, 2005 ND 129 (2005 ND) (interpretation/enforcement of judgments; public policy in support)
- Cline v. Cline, 2007 ND 85 (2007 ND) (child support guidelines adherence; public policy)
- Zarrett v. Zarrett, 1998 ND 49 (1998 ND) (stipulations impacting court authority to modify support invalid)
- Sprynczynatyk v. Celley, 486 N.W.2d 230 (ND 1992) (parens patriae/public policy in child support)