State v. Mudge, 2011 ND 79

Citibank filed a complaint on July 19, 2010, seeking payment on a credit card debt owed by Peterson.
Peterson filed a motion labeled as a special appearance to dismiss with prejudice and seek costs, which the district court denied.
Citibank moved for default judgment; Peterson had not answered the complaint and lodged other papers with the court.
The district court entered a default judgment on September 13, 2010 for $2,708.95, and Peterson moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
Peterson appeals the default judgment and the denial of his Rule 60(b) reconsideration motion; the court affirms the rulings.
Appellate review centers on whether Rule 60(b) relief was properly denied and whether any jurisdictional or due process issues warrant relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper.	Peterson sought relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b).	Peterson contends the district court abused its discretion in denying relief.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Did Peterson receive due process without a hearing on reconsideration?	Due process was satisfied because Peterson could present his objections through available channels.	Lack of a hearing violated due process.	No due process violation; no hearing required given the record.
Did the district court judge have an appearance of impartiality issue due to credit card use by the judge?	There was a disqualifying conflict of interest requiring recusal.	There was no demonstrated impartiality issue; allegations are vague.	No abuse; no recusal required.
Did the district court have personal jurisdiction over Peterson?	Court properly exercised jurisdiction as per filings and service.	Personal jurisdiction was lacking.	Not properly raised on appeal; issue considered but ultimately resolved in favor of jurisdiction.
Did the district court have subject-matter jurisdiction and could the record be supplemented on appeal?	Subject-matter jurisdiction existed; incomplete record concerns could be addressed.	Record supplementation was improperly denied or blocked.	District court had jurisdiction; Rule 10(h) issues not properly raised; record supplementation not properly reviewable.

Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 138 (ND 2010) (appealability of final judgments and specific orders under §28-27-02)
Gustafson v. Poitra, 2008 ND 159 (ND 2008) (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Woodward v. Woodward, 2010 ND 143 (ND 2010) (appearance of impartiality is reasonableness-based; recusal not required for vague charges)
American Bank Ctr. v. Schuh, 2010 ND 124 (ND 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(b) relief)
Shull v. Walcker, 2009 ND 142 (ND 2009) (abuse of discretion standard; discretionary relief required proper basis)
Beaudoin v. South Texas Blood & Tissue Ctr., 2005 ND 120 (ND 2005) (rule that Rule 60(b) relief does not excuse deliberate choices)
In re Braun, 145 N.W.2d 482 (ND 1966) (principle that Rule 60(b) considerations must be balanced against timely action)
Rutherford v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2009 ND 88 (ND 2009) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised on appeal)
In re M.W., 2010 ND 135 (ND 2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can be raised sua sponte)
Trottier v. Bird, 2001 ND 177 (ND 2001) (district court has general jurisdiction to determine civil actions)
Rudnick v. City of Jamestown, 463 N.W.2d 632 (ND 1990) (general principles of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State Bank of Burleigh County Trust Co. v. Patten, 357 N.W.2d 239 (ND 1984) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
Overboe v. Odegaard, 496 N.W.2d 574 (ND 1993) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(b) motions)