Sather v. Sather, 952 N.W.2d 98

Adam and Amber Sather, married 2001, have three minor children; they executed a stipulated divorce agreement in January 2020.
Amber objected before entry of judgment, disputing allocation of extracurricular/daycare costs and requesting inclusions for summer parenting time, decision‑making responsibility, children’s rights, residence, and dispute resolution.
February 2020 hearing: court removed the extracurricular/daycare cost paragraph, ordered inclusion of N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑32(1) parental‑rights language, but refused to add summer parenting time and decision‑making provisions, saying a party must file a motion to address them.
The district court entered an amended judgment incorporating the parties’ stipulated parenting plan, which did not address decision‑making responsibility, dispute resolution, transportation/exchanges, or summer parenting time.
Amber appealed, arguing the judgment failed to include required parenting‑plan provisions; Adam challenged appellate jurisdiction and sought appellate costs and fees.
The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction, concluded the court erred by adopting the stipulated parenting plan without the statutorily required provisions or the court’s best‑interests findings, reversed and remanded, and denied fees to Adam.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amber)	Defendant's Argument (Adam)	Held
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal	Judgment is appealable; Amber timely appealed the amended judgment	No jurisdiction because judgment was not final	Court has jurisdiction — judgment was final (no reservation) and appealable
Whether the judgment/parenting plan satisfied N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑30(2) (required parenting‑plan contents)	Judgment adopted a stipulated plan but omitted decision‑making, dispute resolution, transport/exchange, and summer provisions — court erred	Adopted stipulated plan; parties agreed to plan	Court erred — statute requires those provisions (or an explanation) and the court must either include them or make best‑interests findings before adopting a deficient stipulation
Whether the court was required to include the language of N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑07 (change of residence procedure) in the judgment	Court should have included § 14‑09‑07 language	Not required; court referenced related statute § 14‑09‑32 and included that language	Court: Amber did not show error — including § 14‑09‑07 language is not legally required
Whether Adam is entitled to appellate costs and attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38	N/A (Adam requested fees)	Appeal was frivolous or without merit	Denied — the appeal was not frivolous

In re A.B., 707 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 2005) (only final judgments and statutory interlocutory orders are appealable)
Presswood v. Runyan, 937 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 2020) (divorce judgment reserving property allocation is not final absent Rule 54(b) certification)
Horsted v. Horsted, 812 N.W.2d 448 (N.D. 2012) (district court must make required findings; omission is legal error requiring remand)