Presswood v. Runyan, 937 N.W.2d 279

Heather Presswood filed for divorce based on irreconcilable differences and sought equitable property division and debt allocation; Warren Runyan counterclaimed alleging infidelity.
Presswood moved for entry of a divorce decree on irreconcilable differences while expressly reserving property division and debt allocation for later.
Runyan objected to entry of divorce on irreconcilable differences and argued Presswood’s motion was not properly supported because she did not file a supporting brief.
The district court granted the divorce without a hearing and entered a judgment dissolving the marriage but reserved property and debt issues; the judgment did not include a Rule 54(b) certification, a Rule 21 severance, or a statutory remarrying provision.
Runyan appealed, arguing the divorce should not have been entered and that he was denied due process when the court did not resolve his objection.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the divorce judgment was not a final, appealable order under controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judgment granting divorce but reserving property/debt is a final, appealable judgment	Presswood sought a divorce decree immediately and treated property/debt as separable for later resolution	Runyan contended the divorce was improperly entered and not appealable if nonfinal	The judgment was not final or appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification, Rule 21 severance, or a remarrying provision; appeal dismissed
Whether failure to file a supporting brief defeated Presswood’s motion	(implied) the motion could be decided without a supporting brief	Runyan argued the motion was not properly before the court due to lack of a supporting brief	Court did not reach the merits because it lacked jurisdiction; dispositive jurisdictional rule prevented addressing this claim
Whether Runyan was denied due process because court did not rule on his objection	Presswood implicitly relied on court’s authority to grant the motion despite objections	Runyan argued the court’s failure to rule on his objection deprived him of due process	Court declined to address due-process claim after concluding the judgment was not appealable for lack of finality

Albrecht v. Albrecht, 2014 ND 221, 856 N.W.2d 755 (holding a divorce judgment reserving other issues is not a final appealable order absent Rule 54(b) certification or statutory remarrying provision)
James Vault & Precast Co. v. B & B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 2018 ND 63, 908 N.W.2d 108 (noting the right to appeal is statutory and jurisdictional)
In re A.B., 2005 ND 216, 707 N.W.2d 75 (explaining only final judgments and statutory orders are appealable)