Richardson v. Richardson, 981 N.W.2d 907

Plaintiff-appellee Kimberly R. Richardson and defendant-appellant Reuben M. Richardson dispute primary residential responsibility for their child.
Reuben filed a motion to modify residential responsibility and requested an evidentiary hearing.
The district court denied the motion without a hearing, finding Reuben failed to make a prima facie showing that a material change in circumstances had adversely affected the child.
Reuben moved for reconsideration; the district court denied the motion.
Reuben appealed both the denial of the modification motion and the denial of reconsideration.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Reuben did not establish a prima facie case and that his reconsideration request did not invoke the appropriate Rule 59(j) or 60(b) grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether movant established a prima facie case sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing to modify primary residential responsibility	Kimberly argued the district court correctly required a prima facie showing and that Reuben did not meet it	Reuben argued he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on modification	Court held Reuben failed to show a material change adversely affecting the child and did not meet the prima facie threshold; affirmed denial without hearing
Whether denial of Reuben's motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	Kimberly argued the district court properly denied reconsideration because Reuben failed to invoke Rules 59(j) or 60(b)	Reuben reargued entitlement to an evidentiary hearing but did not cite or argue grounds under Rules 59(j) or 60(b)	Court held ND does not formally recognize motions to reconsider; because Reuben did not invoke or meet Rule 59(j)/60(b) grounds, the district court did not abuse its discretion; affirmed

Gomm v. Winterfeldt, 2022 ND 172 (reviews de novo whether movant established a prima facie case)
Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, 963 N.W.2d 278 (modification requires material change that adversely affects the child)
Johnshoy v. Johnshoy, 2021 ND 108, 961 N.W.2d 282 (same prima facie standard for modification)
Rath v. Rath, 2018 ND 138, 911 N.W.2d 919 (ND does not formally recognize motions to reconsider)
Schmidt v. Hageness, 2022 ND 179 (describes treating reconsideration requests as Rule 59(j) or 60(b) motions)
Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228, 823 N.W.2d 504 (Rule 59(j) may present newly available evidence but not relitigate facts)
Hanson v. Hanson, 2003 ND 20, 656 N.W.2d 656 (Rule 59(j) allows seeking reconsideration of a judgment)
Shull v. Walcker, 2009 ND 142, 770 N.W.2d 274 (Rule 60(b) relief is exceptional and requires sufficient grounds)