State v. Wilson, 2011 ND 18

Main was evicted from an apartment after the district court found she materially breached her lease for not resolving unpaid rent with a prior landlord.
In 2009, Main’s application for public housing assistance was denied due to the prior debt of $1,244.55 incurred while on assistance.
At a June 25, 2009 informal settlement conference, Main agreed to resolve the unpaid rent with the prior landlord; a repayment plan via a collection agency was set to $100/month.
Main executed a lease with Community Homes on July 23, 2009 and began public housing assistance for the unit.
Main paid $100 per month to the collection agency through July 29, 2009 and provided receipts to Community Homes.
In September–November 2009, Community Homes claimed Main failed to make August/September payments and filed eviction; Main claimed job loss and a 12-month repayment window.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Material breach: failure to resolve unpaid rent	Main argues no material breach; debt is unenforceable due to statute of limitations.	Community Homes argues the repayment agreement revived the debt and breached the lease.	District court’s material breach finding not clearly erroneous.
Right to due process during witness refreshment	Main contends procedure violated due process by using scripted testimony and memory refresh.	Community Homes asserts court properly controlled procedure; no due process violation.	No due process violation; fair opportunity to respond.
Enforceability of prior debt and statute of limitations	Main claims debt barred by statute of limitations and not enforceable against her.	New promise to pay revived the debt removing limitations bar.	New written promise revived the debt; statute of limitations does not bar.
Impartiality of decision maker	Main argues dual role of attorney as decision maker and opposing party compromised fairness.	No showing that counsel acted as decision maker; process consistent with law.	No due process or impartiality violation; trial fair.

Mellon v. Norwest Bank, 493 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1992) (economic duress not affirmative defense in ND contract law)
Pear v. Grand Forks Motel Assoc., 553 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 1996) (new promise can revive debt; statute of limitations analysis)
Knoefler, 325 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1982) (district court discretion on production of documents used to refresh memory)
Hall v. American Bakeries Co., 873 F.2d 1133 (8th Cir. 1989) (memory-refresh foundation requirements; use of notes not per se error)
State v. Saulter, 764 N.W.2d 430 (N.D. 2009) (due process considerations; appellate deference to trial court control)