State, County of Cass ex rel. Schlect v. Wolff
801 N.W.2d 694
| N.D. | 2011Background
- 1996 State sues Wolff to establish paternity of C.A.W. and obtain child support after Schlect and child began receiving public assistance.
- 1997 district court defaults, finds Wolff are C.A.W.'s father; Schlect custody; 1999 stipulation reduces child support; amended judgment entered with State as party.
- 2009 Wolff–Schlect stipulation provides equal residential responsibility and no child support; second amended judgment incorporates stipulation.
- October 2009 State moves under Rule 60(b) to vacate the second amended judgment, alleging State’s participation and hearing rights were violated; Wolff did not secure a hearing.
- Remand and clarification occurred: district court referred matter to judicial referee under Admin. Rule 13; referee finds State is a party per N.D.C.C. §14-09-09.26 and that the second amended judgment contains unenforceable provisions.
- District court (Dec. 2010) adopts referee, concludes referee had jurisdiction, State has standing, and the second amended judgment is unenforceable and vacated; final affirmation of district court order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of State as real party in interest | State is real party under §14-09-09.26 due to IV-D involvement. | Wolff contends no ongoing State interest after aid ceased. | State is real party and has standing. |
| Jurisdiction of the judicial referee to hear vacate motion | Referee properly referred under Rule 13(5) and district court remand; has jurisdiction. | Wolff argues improper referral and retroactivity issues. | Referee had jurisdiction; matter properly before referee. |
| Unenforceability and non-compliance with child support guidelines in second amended judgment | Second amended judgment contains unenforceable provisions and deviates from guidelines. | Wolff contends judgment valid and enforceable. | Judgment unenforceable; vacated under Rule 60(b) standards. |
| Effect of 60(b) relief and discretion to vacate | Relief appropriate to cure unenforceable provisions and align with policy. | Wolff argues improper relief or misapplication of law. | District court did not abuse discretion; vacate affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.H., 2004 ND 170 (ND 2004) (IV-D program interpretation and state’s role in child support)
- Lee v. Lee, 2005 ND 129 (ND 2005) (interpretation/enforcement of judgments; enforceability against future support)
- Zarrett v. Zarrett, 1998 ND 49 (ND 1998) (stipulations limiting court’s modify authority; public policy)
- Cline v. Cline, 2007 ND 85 (ND 2007) (public policy against underfunded support; guideline compliance)
- Sprynczynatyk v. Celley, 486 N.W.2d 230 (ND 1992) (rights of child; status of support payments)
- Vanderscoff v. Vanderscoff, 2010 ND 202 (ND 2010) (standards for relief from judgment; abuse of discretion)
- McWethy v. McWethy, 366 N.W.2d 796 (ND 1985) (due process in notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Lee v. Lee, 2005 ND 129 (ND 2005) (interpretation of judgment; enforceability)