905 N.W.2d 744
N.D.2018Background
- Petitioner Bruce Kautzman filed for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Brenda Doll on November 7, 2016; a temporary order was issued and a hearing was later held on December 16, 2016, resulting in a permanent restraining order.
- Doll did not timely appeal the November 8, 2016 temporary order or the December 16, 2016 final restraining order.
- Doll filed a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2017; the district court denied the motion on April 25, 2017.
- Doll appealed only the denial of her motion to reconsider; she challenged the underlying orders and alleged denial of a full and fair hearing.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the reconsideration motion and whether procedural rules about timeliness and the proper rule (Rule 59 vs Rule 60) barred relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doll) | Defendant's Argument (Kautzman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doll can challenge underlying restraining orders via appeal from denial of motion to reconsider | Doll contends she can raise errors from the underlying orders in her motion and appeal | Kautzman argues Doll failed to timely appeal the underlying orders; cannot use Rule 60/59 motion to attack unappealed order | Court: Doll cannot attack the underlying orders on this appeal; untimely appeal of those orders bars review |
| Whether Doll’s motion was timely under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) (motion to alter/amend) | Doll cites Rule 59(j) as basis for reconsideration | Kautzman notes motion was filed more than 28 days after notice of entry; therefore untimely under Rule 59(j) | Court: Motion untimely under Rule 59(j); denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Doll’s motion qualifies for tolling under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3)(A)(vi) (Rule 60 timely filing exception) | Doll asserted reconsideration should toll appeal time | Kautzman points out motion was not filed within 28 days of entry to invoke tolling | Court: Motion did not meet tolling requirements; time to appeal had lapsed |
| Whether relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) (extraordinary relief) was warranted based on due process/fair hearing claims | Doll argues she was denied opportunity to testify and present closing argument, so exceptional circumstances justify relief | Kautzman contends the hearing was full: petitioner testified, Doll cross-examined through counsel, no request to testify or make closing was made | Court: No exceptional circumstances shown; district court did not abuse discretion in denying 60(b)(6) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (appeal from denial of Rule 60 relief cannot be used to attack underlying unappealed order)
- Sturdevant v. SAE Warehouse, Inc., 310 N.W.2d 749 (N.D. 1981) (same principle that appeal from refusal to vacate does not permit collateral attack on underlying order)
- Choice Fin. Grp. v. Schellpfeffer, 696 N.W.2d 504 (N.D. 2005) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- White v. Altru Health Sys., 746 N.W.2d 173 (N.D. 2008) (motions to reconsider treated as Rule 59 or Rule 60 motions)
- Greywind v. State, 869 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 2015) (same treatment of reconsideration motions)
- Hildebrand v. Stolz, 888 N.W.2d 197 (N.D. 2016) (Rule 60(b)(6) is catch-all for extraordinary circumstances and is limited)
- Larson v. Larson, 653 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 2002) (standard of review for denial of motion for reconsideration: abuse of discretion)
- Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 705 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 2005) (district court has discretion in conducting hearings; reversal only for abuse)
- Skadberg v. Skadberg, 644 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 2002) (respondent’s failure to object or testify does not defeat finding of full hearing)
- Shull v. Walcker, 770 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 2009) (burden on movant to establish grounds to disturb final judgment)