Prchal v. Prchal
2011 ND 62
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Betty Lund filed for divorce from Orvell Lund in November 2009; Orvell replied indicating no attorney would be retained to settle assets fairly.
- A notice of trial was issued for April 26, 2010, with trial scheduling occurring in January 2010.
- Orvell moved for a continuance on March 19, 2010, asserting a newly hired attorney had an overlapping trial; the district court denied.
- Orvell renewed his continuance motion and sought disqualification of the judge on April 7, 2010; both motions were denied on April 14, 2010.
- Theresa Cole withdrew as Orvell’s counsel on April 19, 2010; Orvell represented himself at the April 26, 2010 trial, which resulted in a divorce and half-estate distribution to each party.
- The district court found the deed purporting to transfer property to Wendell Lund invalid and the mechanic’s lien by Wendell invalid, including full value of property in the distribution; Orvell appealed and a stay of judgment was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuance denial was an abuse of discretion | Lund argues denial prejudiced presentation of his case | Lund delayed seeking counsel; ten-day rule and conflicts justified denial | No abuse; court properly exercised discretion |
| Whether disqualification of the judge was required due to bias | Previous rulings and bias claims show unfairness | Adverse rulings do not prove bias; claims are spurious | No disqualification required |
| Whether the district court’s property-distribution findings were clearly erroneous | Transfers and lien were legitimate and should affect distribution | Transfers and lien were invalid attempts to deprive Betty; not properly includable | Findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the stay-denial procedure complied with applicable rules | District court should grant stay; denial was reversible error | Stay requests must be addressed first in district court; appeal is improper vehicle | Proper procedure is to seek stay in district court or in this Court via stay petition; denial not reversible error |
| Whether the appeal challenges to interlocutory orders were properly treated as from a final judgment | Interlocutory orders are reviewable as part of the final judgment | Interlocutory orders generally not appealable, but final judgment supports review | Appeal treated as from a final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. Woodward, 2010 ND 143 (ND 2010) (appearance of impartiality; bias claims require more than adverse rulings)
- Martinson v. Martinson, 2010 ND 110 (ND 2010) (interlocutory orders reviewable in final appeal)
- Isaacson v. Isaacson, 2010 ND 18 (ND 2010) (consistency of judgment and appealability of related orders)
- In re D.C.S.H.C., 2007 ND 102 (ND 2007) (continuance standards and trial management)
- Frohlich v. Frohlich, 2007 ND 45 (ND 2007) (diligence in obtaining counsel and continuance considerations)
- Hartleib v. Simes, 2009 ND 205 (ND 2009) (trial court discretion in continuances)
- State v. Foster, 1997 ND 8 (ND 1997) (governmental trial continuances and discretion)
- Peterson v. Zerr, 443 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1989) (continuance and trial-management rules)
- Lynnes v. Lynnes, 2008 ND 71 (ND 2008) (clearly erroneous standard and review of findings of fact)