Rath v. Rath, 2016 ND 105

Mark and Kayla Rath divorced in January 2013; Kayla awarded primary residential responsibility and Mark supervised parenting time with specified phone-call windows.
Mark repeatedly litigated issues arising from post-judgment parenting communications; this Court had decided multiple prior Rath appeals addressing similar disputes.
Mark moved for an order to show cause (contempt) and for relief from the divorce judgment, alleging Kayla monitored calls, interfered with scheduled calls, refused a child’s receipt of a cell phone gift, and claiming judicial bias.
The district court denied both motions as repetitive and without merit and warned Mark his filings were frivolous under Rule 11, though it imposed no sanction at that time.
Mark appealed the denial and the district court’s finding (and warning) that his motions were frivolous, sought contempt proceedings against Kayla for blocking the cell phone gift, and sought recusal of the judge for alleged bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motions were frivolous and sanctionable	Court/respondent maintained filings were frivolous and warned of sanctions	Mark contended the court erred in labeling his motions frivolous	Court affirmed warning; finding not reversible because no sanction levied and warning justified by repetitive litigation
Whether contempt proceedings were warranted for alleged interference with phone gift	Kayla/Respondent implicitly contended contempt not warranted given parental decision-making and limited proof	Mark argued Kayla willfully interfered with child’s right to receive gifts and should be held in contempt	Court held district court did not abuse discretion in declining contempt; parental discretion and lack of clear evidence of willful, knowing disobedience justified refusal to order contempt proceedings
Whether judge must recuse for bias	Respondent/ court argued prior adverse rulings do not show bias	Mark argued repeated adverse rulings show bias and require recusal	Court held recusal unwarranted; adverse or erroneous rulings alone do not demonstrate bias and Mark failed to allege facts showing partiality or external influence
Standard for relief from judgment / reconsideration	N/A (court applied standards)	Mark sought relief; argued errors in process and rulings	Court applied motion-for-reconsideration standard and found no abuse of discretion in denying relief

Greywind v. State, 2015 ND 231, 869 N.W.2d 746 (treating motions for relief as motions for reconsideration)
Waslaski v. State, 2013 ND 70, 830 N.W.2d 228 (reversal of denial of reconsideration only for manifest abuse of discretion)
Riak v. State, 2015 ND 120, 863 N.W.2d 894 (definition of abuse of discretion)
Estate of Pedro v. Scheeler, 2014 ND 237, 856 N.W.2d 775 (standard for frivolous claim under statute and court’s authority to control docket)
Strand v. Cass County, 2008 ND 149, 753 N.W.2d 872 (court must award attorney fees when finding a claim frivolous under statute)
Rath v. Rath, 2014 ND 171, 852 N.W.2d 377 (contempt standard in domestic relations context and limits on using contempt to police every technical order violation)