Riemers v. Hill, 2016 ND 137

In Aug. 2013 Riemers sued Heidee Hill (and family members listed as occupants) for unpaid rent, late fees, property damage, and punitive damages arising from a lease signed only by Heidee Hill.
The Hill family counterclaimed for abuse of process, alleging Riemers sued to harass them after they reported the property as uninhabitable; they sought attorney fees after moving to dismiss the 2013 suit.
Riemers failed to appear at a December 5, 2013 hearing; the court dismissed his 2013 complaint without prejudice and awarded the Hills $500 in attorney fees as a sanction for his nonappearance.
The district court denied some discovery and consolidated the 2013 and 2014 actions (Riemers refiled in Oct. 2014). The court granted the Hills partial summary judgment on liability for their abuse-of-process counterclaim but left damages for trial.
At bench trial the court found Heidee Hill liable to Riemers for $8,245.87 (rent/damage) and found Riemers liable to Ashley Roesler for $10,164 on the abuse-of-process claim, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed summary judgment on liability for the abuse-of-process claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to award attorney fees after dismissal without prejudice	Riemers: court lacked contractual/statutory authority and did not find frivolous or bad-faith conduct	Hills: court had inherent sanction power for misconduct (Riemers' failure to appear)	Affirmed: court had inherent authority; $500 sanction not an abuse of discretion
Consolidation of 2013 and 2014 actions	Riemers: consolidation was improper	Hills: cases share common questions of law/fact; parties agreed	Affirmed: consolidation not an abuse of discretion
Denial of discovery motions	Riemers: discovery was needed to oppose summary judgment on abuse of process	Hills: Riemers failed to follow Rule 37(a)(1); requested discovery related to dismissed claims	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying motions
Liability on abuse-of-process counterclaim (summary judgment)	Riemers: mere filing/service of complaint is proper process; communications in judicial proceedings are privileged; no overt act beyond filing	Hills: Riemers sued with ulterior motive to harass and to deprive Roesler of housing benefits; evidence suggests overt acts and willfulness	Reversed on liability: factual issues (ulterior purpose, willfulness, overt act) preclude summary judgment; remanded for further proceedings

Deacon's Dev., LLP v. Lamb, 719 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 2006) (American Rule and exceptions for attorney fees)
Viscito v. Christianson, 862 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 2015) (court's inherent sanction power and factors for sanctions)
Dronen v. Dronen, 764 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 2009) (review standard and inherent sanctions)
Overboe v. Brodshaug, 751 N.W.2d 177 (N.D. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Heller v. Production Credit Ass'n, 462 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1990) (consolidation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Western Horizons Living Ctrs. v. Feland, 853 N.W.2d 36 (N.D. 2014) (broad discretion in discovery rulings)
Jordet v. Jordet, 861 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 2015) (elements of abuse of process: ulterior purpose and willful improper act)
Wachter v. Gratech Co., Ltd., 608 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 2000) (abuse-of-process requires overt act beyond process issuance)
Kummer v. City of Fargo, 516 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 1994) (abuse-of-process precedents requiring collateral advantage/overt act)
Volk v. Wisconsin Mortg. Assurance Co., 474 N.W.2d 40 (N.D. 1991) (genuine issues of fact can preclude summary judgment on abuse of process)
Stoner v. Nash Finch, Inc., 446 N.W.2d 747 (N.D. 1989) (abuse-of-process requires more than bad intent; extortion-like overt act)
Lucas v. Riverside Park Condos. Unit Owners Ass'n, 776 N.W.2d 801 (N.D. 2009) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
Barbie v. Minko Constr., Inc., 766 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 2009) (summary judgment burden and need for competent opposing evidence)