Lessard v. Johnson, 936 N.W.2d 528

Background

Married in 2006; three minor children. Lessard filed for divorce in 2018 seeking primary residential responsibility, child support, and equitable property division; Johnson cross‑claimed for residential responsibility, child and spousal support, and fees.
Trial was scheduled for Oct. 2, 2018, rescheduled to Dec. 6, 2018; Johnson’s first attorney withdrew Oct. 31; new counsel appeared Nov. 30; Johnson moved for a continuance Dec. 4 which the district court denied.
At trial the court awarded Lessard primary residential responsibility, ordered Johnson parenting time, set child support at $0, denied spousal support, divided the marital estate (net estate ≈ $3,102,000 with each party receiving ≈ $1,551,000 after excluding children’s 529 accounts), and directed Lessard to pay Johnson $600,000.
Johnson moved for a new trial, to modify custody, to amend judgment, and for contempt; the district court denied post‑judgment motions and Johnson appealed.
The district court found Johnson suffered from severe Alcohol Use Disorder, which adversely affected his parenting; the court concluded alcohol history strongly favored awarding primary residential responsibility to Lessard.
The court denied Johnson’s contempt motion on the briefs because neither party requested an evidentiary hearing and Johnson’s submissions did not clearly and satisfactorily show willful violation of the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Lessard's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance/new trial was error	Trial scheduling and counsel changes were due process‑compliant; no new‑trial grounds.	Denial prejudiced ability to prepare and secure counsel because Lessard controlled marital funds.	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; Johnson failed to show denial prevented a fair trial.
Whether primary residential responsibility award was erroneous	Court properly applied best‑interest factors and found Johnson’s alcoholism detrimental to children.	Court failed to consider some statutory factors and inconsistently weighed Johnson’s year of sobriety.	Findings were sufficiently specific and supported; award not clearly erroneous.
Whether property division and spousal support rulings were erroneous	Property division was equitable and explained; 529 accounts excluded as children’s property.	Division unexplained, $300k disparity unexplained; spousal support necessary given income disparity.	Property division affirmed (court explained near‑equal split after exclusions); spousal support claim waived for appeal (not raised in new‑trial motion).
Whether contempt motion required evidentiary hearing	Contempt requires notice and hearing if requested; but no hearing was requested.	Contempt should have been heard; alleged willful violations of judgment.	District court did not abuse discretion in deciding on briefs; denial affirmed because Johnson did not request a hearing and submissions failed to prove willful contempt.

Key Cases Cited

Riddle v. Riddle, 907 N.W.2d 769 (2018 ND 62) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of new trial)
Grasser v. Grasser, 909 N.W.2d 99 (2018 ND 85) (deferential review of primary residential responsibility findings between fit parents)
Thompson v. Thompson, 905 N.W.2d 772 (2018 ND 21) (standard for reviewing custody findings)
Zuo v. Wang, 932 N.W.2d 360 (2019 ND 211) (statutory best‑interest factors must be considered)
Rustad v. Baumgartner, 920 N.W.2d 465 (2018 ND 268) (court need not make separate findings for each factor but must show factual basis)
Tuhy v. Tuhy, 907 N.W.2d 351 (2018 ND 53) (equitable division rules and waiver doctrine for issues not raised in new‑trial motion)
Prairie Supply, Inc. v. Apple Elec., Inc., 867 N.W.2d 335 (2015 ND 190) (limitation on appellate review where party sought new trial)
Dietz v. Dietz, 733 N.W.2d 225 (2007 ND 84) (right to evidentiary hearing on contempt when requested)
Seibold v. Leverington, 812 N.W.2d 460 (2012 ND 25) (N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 procedural framework for contempt motions)
Rath v. Rath, 840 N.W.2d 656 (2013 ND 243) (contempt statutes not meant to police every quarrel or angry words)