Vanderscoff v. Vanderscoff
2010 ND 202
| N.D. | 2010Background
- David and Elaine Vanderscoff divorced in 2005; David was ordered to pay $15,000 per month in spousal support.
- In 2007 David sought to modify spousal support; the district court denied the modification and awarded Elaine $2,000 in fees and costs.
- Elaine cross-appealed, and in 2009 the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court’s fee award as to the 2007 motion.
- In 2009 Elaine moved for a money judgment for unpaid support and for $2,000 in fees plus reasonable fees and costs for the current motion; David sought vacatur.
- The district court granted Elaine a money judgment for unpaid support and awarded $88,113 in total fees and costs, including amounts for the 2007 motion and appeal; David moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
- The district court treated the motion as relief from judgment and denied reconsideration, but this Court ultimately reversed part of the award and affirmed part, holding misapplication of res judicata and due-process concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar Elaine’s fees for the 2007 motion and related appeal? | Vanderscoff argues the 2007 fees are barred by res judicata. | Vanderscoff/ Elaine contends the district court had discretion to award reasonable fees under 14-05-23. | Yes; res judicata barred those fees. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)? | Vanderscoff contends reconsideration was warranted to correct error and misapplication of law. | Vanderscoff argues the court acted within its discretion under 60(b). | Yes; the court abused its discretion. |
| Was Elaine’s request for fees for the first appeal properly supported and notice given to allow rebuttal? | Vanderscoff asserts lack of notice and improper basis for award of appeal fees. | Vanderscoff argues fees were justified and properly awarded. | The court erred in failing to provide notice and opportunity to rebut for the first appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riverwood Commercial Park, L.L.C. v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2007 ND 36 (ND) (res judicata applies to claims that were raised or could have been raised; final judgments are conclusive)
- Laib v. Laib, 2010 ND 62 (ND) (doctrine precludes relitigating issues that could have been tried)
- Ungar v. North Dakota State Univ., 2006 ND 185 (ND) (res judicata principles; final judgments are conclusive)
- Riemers v. State, 2008 ND 101 (ND) (policy goals of final judgments; avoid multiple litigation)
- Dvorak v. Dvorak, 2001 ND 178 (ND) (motion for reconsideration may be treated as Rule 60(b) relief; standard of review)
- Martinson v. Martinson, 2010 ND 110 (ND) (discretionary standard for relief from judgment; abuse shown by arbitrary or misapplication of law)
- I.K. v. I.K., 2003 ND 101 (ND) (due process considerations in notices and opportunities to respond)
- Whitmire v. Whitmire, 1999 ND 56 (ND) (reasonableness and evidence required to support attorney fees)