Sall v. Sall, 804 N.W.2d 378

Divorce in 2003 granted Weber custody of two children and ordered Sail to pay all extracurricular costs and maintain medical insurance for the children, with shared reimbursement for medical, dental, and optical expenses not paid by insurance; Sail was to maintain Weber's medical insurance for 36 months,, and Weber had no income so Sail claimed the children’s tax exemptions.
Sail paid medical insurance for Weber but not dental/vision insurance; disputes arose over extracurricular and medical expenses for the children.
In July 2010 Weber sought contempt for Sail’s failure to pay dental/vision premiums (2003–2006); a referee denied, district court held no contempt due to silence in the decree and lack of willful disobedience.
In September–October 2010 Weber sought contempt for overdue expenses dating back to 2004 and Sail moved to amend the judgment; hearings culminated in a January 11, 2011 order addressing reimbursement and amendment.
The district court held that expenses more than two years old were stale as a matter of law and denied those claims; it amended the judgment to require monthly extracurricular contributions and clarified medical expense procedures; on appeal, the stale-claims ruling was reversed and remanded for individual assessment of older claims.
Weber appeals from the contempt ruling on dental/vision premiums and the stale-expenses ruling; the remaining issues were affirmed or deemed unnecessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contempt for dental/vision premiums	Weber contends Sail knowingly disobeyed the decree by not paying premiums.	Sail argues the decree was silent on dental/vision insurance; no willful disobedience shown.	Not contempt; no clear willful disobedience due to silence in the decree.
Stale claims for expenses older than two years	Older claims should be reimbursed if supported by evidence.	Older claims should be barred as stale or time-barred.	Erroneous to deem all older claims stale; remand to reconsider older claims with credibility assessment.

Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (ND 2000) (contempt requires a willful disobedience to a court order)
Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 598 N.W.2d 499 (ND 1999) (contempt standards; willful disobedience needed)
Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (ND 2002) (need for willful and inexcusable intent for remedial contempt)
Millang v. Hahn, 582 N.W.2d 665 (ND 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt; limited review)
Woodward v. Woodward, 776 N.W.2d 567 (ND 2009) (district court broad discretion in contempt decisions)
Graner v. Graner, 738 N.W.2d 9 (ND 2007) (broad discretion; standard of review for contempt)
Glasser v. Glasser, 724 N.W.2d 144 (ND 2006) (limited review of contempt determinations)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (ND 2011) (contempt standards; review of district court findings)