Jordet v. Jordet, 2015 ND 73

Bradley Jordet and Tracy Jordet divorced in December 2010; Bradley was awarded primary residential responsibility and Tracy was ordered to pay child support and share uncovered medical expenses.
The divorce judgment included an indemnity provision requiring reimbursement if one party paid debts or liabilities the other party agreed or assumed to pay.
In 2012 Bradley sued Tracy for reimbursement under the indemnity provision, asserting he paid substantial debts and expenses for Tracy’s benefit.
Tracy answered, counterclaimed for sanctions and moved for summary judgment, arguing issues were resolved in the divorce and invoking res judicata, collateral estoppel, and insufficient documentation.
Bradley moved for a money judgment; a judicial referee denied the motion for lack of proof; the district court adopted the referee’s decision after reviewing de novo.
Bradley’s motion for a new trial or amended findings was denied as a reconsideration; the district court’s orders were interlocutory, and Bradley appealed from them, but the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal, remanding for proceedings before a district court judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is from a final, appealable order.	Jordet contends the district orders adjudicate his claim for a money judgment.	Jordet’s reliance on finality is misplaced; the orders are interlocutory.	No jurisdiction; the orders are not final and appealable.
Whether the consolidation order affects appealability.	Consolidation merged related actions and should be reviewable.	Consolidation is generally interlocutory and not a final decision.	Consolidation is interlocutory; review available only on a final judgment.
Whether the referee/denial of entry of a money judgment is appealable.	Bradley sought entry of a money judgment based on indemnification.	The denial is not a final adjudication of the merits; remains interlocutory.	Denial of entry of a money judgment is not appealable.
Whether the denial of a new trial or amended findings is appealable.	Bradley sought a new trial/amended findings.	No trial occurred; motion treated as reconsideration and is interlocutory.	Interlocutory; not appealable at this stage.

In re Estate of Hollingsworth, 2012 ND 16 (ND Sup. Ct. (2012)) (jurisdictional review of appeals is essential to determine appealability)
Mann v. N.D. Tax. Com’r, 2005 ND 36 (ND Sup. Ct. (2005)) (two-part test for appealability; statutory basis required)
Dietz v. Kautzman, 2004 ND 164 (ND Sup. Ct. (2004)) (appealability requires a final or enumerated appealable order)
Belden v. Hambleton, 554 N.W.2d 458 (ND 1996) (interlocutory orders are reviewable before final judgment in limited circumstances)
Vinje v. Sabot, 477 N.W.2d 198 (ND 1991) (denial of summary judgment is not appealable; interlocutory status maintained)
Berg v. Dakota Boys Ranch Ass’n, 2001 ND 122 (ND Sup. Ct. (2001)) (order denying summary judgment is interlocutory; case may proceed to trial)
Heller v. Production Credit Ass’n of Minot, 462 N.W.2d 125 (ND 1990) (review of consolidation orders involves abuse of discretion when final judgment is sought)