State v. White, 907 N.W.2d 765

Parents (White and Loibl) share one child born in 2015; State filed suit in March 2016 for child support and related issues while White was incarcerated.
White was personally served at the Barnes County Correctional Facility; Loibl later moved to establish parental rights and mailed that motion to the jail and two Valley City addresses.
White did not respond to the State’s complaint or Loibl’s motion; the district court awarded Loibl primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making authority, supervised parenting time for White, and $575/month child support.
White was released from jail shortly after service and later moved for Rule 60(b) relief and for contempt, claiming he never received Loibl’s motion because she mailed it to the wrong address.
At hearing White admitted Loibl had requested his address but he did not provide it; evidence showed he told Loibl he was staying at a friend’s house and that Loibl mailed the motion to that address.
The district court found White evasive about his address, concluded he had not shown extraordinary circumstances or mistake/fraud, and denied his motions; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted to set aside the judgment awarding primary residential responsibility	Loibl: service by mail to White’s last known addresses (including jail and friend’s address) was sufficient; White failed to protect his rights	White: did not receive Loibl’s motion because it was mailed to the wrong address; alleged mistake, fraud, and extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)	Court affirmed denial — no abuse of discretion; White was evasive about his address and failed to show mistake, fraud, or extraordinary circumstances
Whether contempt relief against Loibl was appropriate	Loibl: complied with service rules and had no contemptuous conduct	White: argued Loibl’s mailing to wrong address justified contempt	Court did not grant relief; contempt issue not necessary to decision or was without merit

Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) relief is abuse of discretion)
Meier v. Meier, 848 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 2014) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch‑all; relief only for extraordinary circumstances; Rule 60(b) not for deliberate choices)
Brandt v. Somerville, 692 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2005) (findings must be sufficient to permit appellate review)