*1 673, P.2d 474 v. Avco State Service, Etc., 50 N.Y.2d GOELLER, Financial Bradley J. Petitioner 406 N.E.2d 1075 N.Y.S.2d Appellant, Grohman, N.C.App. v.

Montford (1978); Haines, Security 245 S.E.2d Exempt Personalty: Toward DAKOTA, Interests JOB NORTH SERVICE Exempt Necessities, Basic Safeguarding Respondent Appellee. (1981). 57 Notre Dame Law. Civ. No. 880045. employed by the courts for The rationale exemption although the this rule is that Court of North Dakota. designed protect debtors statutes July consequence becoming destitute as a indebtedness, statutes of unforeseeable not be an indi

should construed to rights exempt of his of ownership

vidual recog This court has

property. likewise “[e]xemption property

nized con privilege

execution or attachment is a upon not de

ferred the debtor and does

prive him of incidents ordinary ownership exempted property of the encumber, power which is the

sell, dispose Congress otherwise of it.” 174, 189, 12 Farmer, Co. v. 73 N.D.

Candy (1944). agree We courts which have considered

question county and we conclude that the ruling

court did not err in Sellands that the right they claim an waived respect property

exemption with to the pledged

they security as for the debt.2

We have considered the issues by Selland and to be

raised deem them merit.

without order is af- county of the

firmed.

ERICKSTAD, CJ., and GIERKE, JJ.,

MESCHKE concur. Necessities, Exempt statutory Safeguarding 57 Notre give debtors Basic 2. Possible reforms to Haines, protection greater Se- are discussed in Dame Law. 215 Personalty: Exempt curity Interests in Toward *2 employed by Goeller was (United Educational Technical Center Tribes) during carpentry as a instructor school terms from 1983 to 1987. Goeller May last worked for United Tribes on day of the 1986-1987 school final Approximately prior term. one week Tribes, depends that date United upon the for its fund- Federal Government ing, sent Goeller a letter which stated: know, may opera- you “As funds for the tion of the Center for the next uncertain, due, among things, to other and its conse- the Graham-Rudman Act Congressional quences. The Committee appropriations not act on before will June 1987. time,

“Therefore, at this UTETC cannot your will be year. available for the next time, present plans UTETC to contin- staffing pattern. How- its ue ever, subject to review. this is year, hope to have By July 15 of this plans more definite. We will our you inform at that time of the status If situation our situation. informing improved, you will be has rehire, subject, of our decision course, your availability. necessary to funds be less than “Should staffing pattern, we our current maintain things, considering, will be or reduction in possible reduction force some combination of these mea- time or hope these measures will not sures. We Bismarck, (argued), Higgins Kent A. necessary.” Smith, petitioner Sterling Valley City, for J. applied unemployment-com- appellant. May on 1987. Job pensation benefits Gen., Clinton, Atty. Asst. Bis- David E. claim, initially finding his denied appellee. marck, respondent and employee of an educational that he was institution between academic WALLE, VANDE Justice. disqualified from a dis- Bradley appealed J. Goeller 52-06-02(12), pursuant to Section judgment trict appealed, in-per- and an N.D.C.C.1 (Job Service) North Dakota hearing appeals son denying him affirmed the initial referee. The referee benefits. We affirm. Legislature. ch. See 1987 N.D.Sess.Laws was amended 1. Section requested determination. Goeller then employ tion while in the of an education- bureau review. Job Service conducted service week unem- ployment commencing review and affirmed the referee’s decision. during appealed Goeller then district court. years, between two successive academic during The district court entered the similar between two *3 Job from by regular terms, the decision but not successive or dur- appealed. ing period paid which Goeller of pro- sabbatical leave contract, vided for in the individual’s or argues that Job Service during an established and customary va- determining erred in that he had a reason period holiday recess, cation or any reemployment by able of United if performs individual such individual disqualified him Tribes from receiv such the services in first of such aca- ing unemployment-compensation benefits. years demic or terms and there is a if appeal judg When we consider an from a contract or a reasonable reviewing ment of the district court the such perform individual will ser- agency, decision of administrative in capacity vices such edu- review the of the the not cational in institution the second of See, e.g., decision of the district court. such academic or or if terms the Comp. Grace v. North Dakota Workmen’s performs individual in services the Bureau, (N.D.1986). 395 N.W.2d The period immediately before such vacation scope of review of decisions made ad by period recess, or holiday and there is a agencies is forth ministrative set at Section reasonable assurance that such individu- 28-32-19, fac N.D.C.C. Our review of the perform peri- al will such services in the tual by basis of decision adminis immediately following od such vacation agency in three-step [Emphasis or holiday recess.” process wherein determine added.] “(1) findings of fact are Legislature Our this in enacted statute or (2) preponderance evidence; the of comply guidelines der the set forth if the conclusions of law sustained Act, in the Federal Tax fact; (3) findings the of if the provides That U.S.C. 3301-3311. Act §§ supported by decision is the conclusions employers substantial tax credits to in Skjefte of law.” v. Job Service North unemployment- States which administer (N.D.1986). Dakota, 392 N.W.2d compensation in benefits accordance with guidelines. Federal See 26 U.S.C. § time of Job Service’s deter Dept. Ind., Leissring Labor & mination, prohibited Rel., Hum. Wis.2d N.W.2d 533 receiving an educational instructor purpose type legisla of this tion, Court as Wisconsin not periods not of time when school was ed, is in session if the instructor a reasonable prevent “to subsidized summer vacations employment in an educational employed who are dur those teachers capacity Specifi when such ended. ing academic are rea one who cally, disqualified an the statute individual sonably their em resuming assured benefits: following year.” Leissr performed “Which are based on service at ing, instructional, research, principal in an capacity for an In case concluded that administrative education- this Job Service institution, or in an educational institu- Goeller a reasonable assurance 02(9), provision re- 1. The Job Service N.D.C.C. § upon lied now at Section codified 52-06- Skjefte, supra, in the the evidence.” 392 N.W.2d Tribes reemployment with United at 818. Thus the decision the record re- A review of fall of 1987. must be affirmed. that: introduced

veals there was evidence Tribes (1) from United although the letter un- funding was

to Goeller stated GIERKE, MESCHKE and certain, Tribes indicated that United it also JJ., concur. staffing continue its planned “to PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, United the method pattern”; ERICKSTAD, C.J., sitting place same; (3) Goel- been disqualified. applica- required to fill out an ler was after he was he held tion for PEDERSON, Surrogate R. VERNON reported but had initially hired Justice, dissenting. *4 begin- at United Tribes at the to work back in this case contains evidence The record term; (4) representa- a ning of each school that the contract between United Tribes Tribes stated that tive of United no auto- provided and Goeller that there is funded, held he would position Goeller provided by North matic renewal such as is job. offered the be public teachers. Dakota statute for provided The contract here further argues that he did give notice of United Tribes would reemploy reasonable assurance of have its intention to recontract with for the funding ment because for United specific term 15- 1987-1988 school within Funding disagree. certain. We was not give day period. When it failed to nature, very by legislative body, by its notice, disclosed an intent to To de not static but is uncertain. not recontract with him. funding must certain in termine that publicly employed person may order that a assurance which could reasonable employ have a reasonable assurance provided by con- have been nullifying ment would be tantamount reem- tract or some verbal assurance of 52-06-02(12). uncertainty implied practice Thus the and us- missing person age, entirely in this case. does not employment. required I to substi- believe that we Appeals Ins. Russ Cal. for that of an adminis- tute Bd., Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d provide when the facts no Div., 65 Or. Employment Zeek v. I support for their determination. would v. New App. 672 P.2d 349 Ortiz reverse and remand for reconsideration of N.M. Dept., 105 Employment Mexico Sec. the facts Job Service. (N.M.App.1986); Sam 731 P.2d 1357 Dept., 37 Wash. Employment uels v. Sec. (1984). The statute

App. 680 P.2d 764

requires neither an unconditional [Zeek, nor supra reemployment

of future ] [Jennings v. Wash.App. Dept., 34

Employment Sec.

592, 663 P.2d 849 ]. form a suffi-

We conclude that the facts reasoning mind to “have

cient basis for a factual con-

reasonably determined that the weight

clusions were