Riemers v. Jaeger
2013 ND 30
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Kira Burgard filed for divorce and primary residential responsibility of two children (Feb 15, 2012).
- Trial court granted Dammon Burgard a thirty-day extension to file an answer (Mar 7, 2012) to Apr 6, 2012.
- Dammon Burgard did not answer by Apr 6; Kira served an affidavit of no answer and moved for default judgment on Apr 9, 2012.
- Dammon Burgard appeared on record and later filed an answer, counterclaim, and responses on Apr 23, 2012.
- Trial court issued a default judgment awarding Kira primary residential responsibility and Dammon parenting time (May 17, 2012).
- Dammon Burgard timely appealed, challenging lack of hearing and sufficiency of evidence to support best-interests factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was properly entered under Rule 55 | Burgard maintained proper procedure was followed and no irregularities appeared. | Burgard contends failure to hold a hearing and insufficient evidence for best-interests. | Proper procedure followed; no irregularities on face of judgment. |
| Whether any irregularities on the face of the judgment roll negate the judgment | No irregularities evident in the judgment roll. | Default judgment should be vacated or reconsidered due to procedural issues. | No irregularities appear on the face of the judgment roll. |
| Whether the court erred in reviewing the merits of the default judgment on direct appeal | N/A for plaintiff beyond asserting procedure; focus on best interests. | N/A for defense; challenge centers on process and findings. | Merits of the default judgment are not reviewable on direct appeal; only irregularities on face may be reviewed. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered best interests under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 | Court should apply best-interests factors to decide primary residential responsibility. | Default judgment lacks explicit findings on §14-09-06.2 factors. | Review limited to irregularities; merits not addressed on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flemming v. Flemming, 2010 ND 212 (ND 2010) (Rule 60(b) exclusive means for opening a default judgment)
- Riemers v. Dept. of Labor, 2008 ND 191 (ND 2008) (irregularities on face of judgment; direct-appeal review limited)
- Overboe v. Odegaard, 496 N.W.2d 577 (ND 1993) (appeal review of Rule 55 default judgments; process required)
- Vogel v. Roberts, 204 N.W.2d 393 (ND 1973) (judgment roll controls scope of issues on appeal)
- Brossart v. German, 816 N.W.2d 47 (ND 2012) (irregularities on face of judgment; but merits not reviewed on direct appeal)
- Dethloff v. Dethloff, 1998 ND 45 (ND 1998) (sanctioned default judgment; need sufficient findings of fact)
- Perdue v. Sherman, 246 N.W.2d 491 (ND 1976) (notice requirements for default judgments)
- Doll v. Doll, 2011 ND 24 (ND 2011) (broad discretion in parenting-time decisions when determining primary residential responsibility)
- Reimers Seed Co. v. Stedman, 465 N.W.2d 175 (ND App. 1991) (no irregularities appear on face; affirmed default judgment on direct appeal)