Rath v. Rath, 2014 ND 171

Mark Rath and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013 with Kayla having primary residential responsibility and Mark receiving supervised parenting time.
The divorce judgment allowed Mark one weekly telephone call and additional calls when he did not have the children, within specified hours.
In March 2013, Mark sought contempt against Kayla for violating the judgment; the district court denied his request and this denial was affirmed in Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243.
In October 2013, Mark moved again for contempt; Kayla cross-moved for contempt against Mark for calling Kayla and her attorney and for messages.
After a December 2013 hearing, the district court denied Mark’s contempt, granted Kayla’s contempt against Mark for contacting during prohibited times, and allowed Kayla to dispose of certain property and amended the telephone contact provisions.
The court’s contempt order also amended the divorce judgment to resolve conflicts between the criminal judgment conditions and the divorce order; on review, the amendment was reversed as to modification, while contempt findings were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kayla’s contempt finding was proper against Kayla	Rath contends Kayla’s conduct violated the order; contends Kayla should be in contempt	Rath contends Kayla acted willfully; argues no contempt	Affirmed: Kayla not in contempt; Mark in contempt
Whether the district court erred in modifying the divorce judgment	Rath alleges modification without motion/notice	Rath asserts amendment was necessary to resolve conflicts	Reversed: modification of judgment without proper motion/notice invalid
Whether the court properly categorized the sanctions as remedial	Rath argues sanctions were punitive rather than remedial	Rath argues sanctions aimed to ensure compliance and compensate	Affirmed: court’s remedial sanctions findings upheld
Whether due process was satisfied for any modification	Rath claims inadequate notice and opportunity to respond	Kayla claims proper notice	Reversed in part: due process violated for modification; remanded or narrowed modification scope
Whether the court properly exercised continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time	Modification appropriate to change parenting rights	Modification without proper procedure	Remanded/invalid as to modification; contempt findings upheld

Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (2000 ND 37) (contempt standard and need for willful disobedience; broad discretion of trial court)
Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (1999 ND 146) (remedial vs punitive sanctions; standard for contempt)
Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (2002 ND 76) (intent element for remedial contempt; discretion of court)
Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378 (2011 ND 202) (limits of appellate review of contempt; district court discretion)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (2011 ND 62) (standards for modifying parenting time; material change in circumstances)
Schmalle v. Schmalle, 586 N.W.2d 677 (1998 ND 201) (due process and notice in modifications; flexible standard)
Snyder v. Snyder, 787 N.W.2d 727 (2010 ND 161) (due process requirements in modification proceedings)
Orvedal v. Orvedal, 669 N.W.2d 89 (2003 ND 145) (clarification vs modification of judgments; deference to trial court)
Greenwood v. Greenwood, 596 N.W.2d 317 (1999 ND 126) (clarification of vague/ambiguous divorce judgments)