State v. Rosen, 2011 ND 196

Weber and Sall divorced in 2003; Weber gained custody of two children and the decree allocated child-related costs.
Divorce judgment required Sall to pay all extracurricular costs, maintain medical insurance for the children, and share non-insured medical, dental, and optical expenses; Sall could claim child tax exemptions due to Weber's lack of income; Sall was to maintain Weber's medical insurance for 36 months.
Sall paid for medical insurance but not dental or vision insurance for Weber; disputes arose over various child expenses including extracurricular and medical costs.
In July 2010 Weber moved to hold Sall in contempt for dental/vision premiums; a referee denied the motion; district court found no contempt because the judgment was silent on dental/vision insurance and Sall reasonably believed no obligation existed.
In September/October 2010 Weber sought contempt for other expenses dating to 2004 and sought tax exemptions; Sall sought to amend the divorce judgment; hearings culminated in a January 11, 2011 order.
Court denied some relief, capped reimbursement to $1,020.86 for within-two-year expenses, concluded all older claims were stale, and amended the judgment to cap extracurricular expenses at $60 per month with Weber bearing any excess; the issue on stale claims was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contempt for dental/vision premiums	Sall willfully disobeyed the decree by not paying premiums.	The decree did not expressly require dental/vision coverage; no willful disobedience shown.	Not in contempt; district court did not abuse discretion.
Staleness of reimbursement claims >2 years	Weber entitled to reimbursement for all approved expenses regardless of age.	Older claims are stale and barred under the court's two-year cutoff.	Reversed and remanded to reconsider those claims; not all older claims are per se stale.

Berg v. Berg, 606 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 2000) (clear proof required for contempt sanctions; willful disobedience standard)
Harger v. Harger, 644 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 2002) (willful and inexcusable intent required for remedial contempt)
Prchal v. Prchal, 795 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2011) (emphasizes district court discretion in contempt matters)
Millang v. Hahn, 582 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 1998) (discourages overturning district court’s contempt ruling absent abuse of discretion)
Glasser v. Glasser, 724 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2006) (limited review of contempt determinations; deference to district court)
Graner v. Graner, 738 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2007) (broad district court discretion in contempt rulings)
Swanson v. Swanson, 796 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 2011) (preference for contextual evaluation of credibility and evidence)
VND, LLC v. Leevers Foods, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2003) (laches analysis requires prejudice and change in position)
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 540 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 1995) (laches requires prejudice from delay)
Johnson v. Johnson, 527 N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 1995) (support obligations not subject to general statutes of limitations)