State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber, 920 N.W.2d 739

In 2003 the district court declared unsheltered vehicles on Larry Alber’s property a public nuisance under Marion ordinance and ordered abatement.
In 2013 Alber was found in contempt for failing to abate; this Court affirmed that contempt finding in 2013.
Alber unsuccessfully sought reconsideration in 2014 and later filed a Report of Compliance; the City objected and the court took no action.
Alber quitclaimed the property to his children in December 2016; the City notified Alber it would enter the property to remove junked vehicles and later moved to amend the 2013 contempt order to expressly apply to property conveyed after February 22, 2013.
The district court granted the City’s motion in January 2018, adding language that the City could enter and remove vehicles from property Alber conveyed after February 22, 2013; Alber appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly amended the 2013 contempt order to expressly cover property Alber conveyed after Feb. 22, 2013	Amendment clarifies that the abatement obligation travels with the property and allows enforcement against property now owned by others	Amendment improperly adds affirmative relief beyond the original order and attempts to bind new owners without separate proceedings	The amendment was permissible under Rule 60(a) as a clarification "to speak the truth," because N.D.C.C. § 42-01-13 already makes successive owners liable and the amendment did not change the substantive effect of the 2013 order
Whether Alber’s compliance argument bars enforcement (res judicata / appealability)	Alber contends he satisfied the order by filing reports of compliance	City contends prior appeals and the denial of reconsideration foreclose this argument	Court held Alber’s compliance claim was foreclosed by earlier appeal and by his failure to appeal the 2014 denial (res judicata / finality of orders)

Bender v. Beverly Anne, Inc., 651 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 2002) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief beyond a prior judgment)
McKenzie Cty. Soc. Serv. Bd. v. C.G., 633 N.W.2d 157 (N.D. 2001) (federal interpretations of Rule 60(b) are persuasive and Rule 60(b) relief is limited to setting aside judgments)
Adduono v. World Hockey Ass’n, 824 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to grant new affirmative remedies)
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber, 838 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 2013) (prior appeal affirming contempt for failure to abate)
State v. 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee, 873 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 2016) (Rule 60(a) permits correcting judgments to "speak the truth")