Shannon v. Shannon
822 N.W.2d 35
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Jeffrey and Darcie Shannon married in 1984, had two children, and separated after Darcie filed for divorce in 2009.
- Jeffrey moved out in July 2009; the district court dismissed the divorce action, but the parties remained separated.
- In December 2009 Jeffrey suffered a serious accident; Darcie became his temporary guardian and assets were transferred to third parties to shield medical creditors.
- In May 2010 Jeffrey filed a new divorce action; the court reserved ruling on the $135,000 medical debt until anticipated insurer litigation and entered an interlocutory judgment excluding that debt from the opinion.
- Post-trial, the district court distributed property excluding the debt and ordered child support, rehabilitative spousal support for ten years, and attorney fees; the judgment was not final.
- Jeffrey appealed the judgment; Darcie moved to alter or amend and for additional evidence; the court amended some financial provisions, and Jeffrey appealed the post-judgment order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment is final and appealable | Shannon argues the judgment is interlocutory and not final. | Shannon contends the order is appealable as a final resolution of the claims. | Judgment not final or appealable; jurisdiction lacks. |
| Rule 54(b) certification proper for finality | Certification would finalize partial issues. | Certification would be improper here. | Rule 54(b) certification would be improvidently granted. |
| Effect of reserved debt on appeals | Unresolved $135,000 medical debt prevents finality. | Debt reservation does not alone render the judgment final. | Partial property division remains nonfinal due to unresolved debt and its potential impact. |
| Appealability of post-judgment motions | Post-judgment motions affect the judgment and should be appealable. | Post-judgment order is not a final adjudication and not separately appealable. | Post-judgment order not appealable under governing rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holbach v. City of Minot, 2012 ND 117 (ND 2012) (appeal right is statutory; lack of basis requires dismissal)
- In re Estate of Hollingsworth, 2012 ND 16 (ND 2012) (statutory basis governs review; interlocutory issues affect jurisdiction)
- City of Grand Forks v. Riemers, 2008 ND 153 (ND 2008) (appeals limited to final judgments and enumerated orders)
- City of Mandan v. Strata Corp., 2012 ND 173 (ND 2012) (finality and rights of appeal constrained by statute)
- Brummund v. Brummund, 2008 ND 224 (ND 2008) (Rule 54(b) certification improper when judgment resolves only part of a claim)
- Choice Fin. Group v. Schellpfeffer, 2005 ND 90 (ND 2005) (Rule 54(b) certification should reflect final resolution of entire claim)
- Frontier Enters., LLP v. DW Enters., LLP, 2004 ND 131 (ND 2004) (interlocutory judgments may be nonfinal where not expressly certified)
- Kosobud v. Kosobud, 2012 ND 122 (ND 2012) (property distribution and spousal support must be considered together)