| O'Keeffe v. O'Keeffe |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 201 Opinion Date: September 16, 2020 Judge: Jerod E. Tufte Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Tim O’Keeffe appealed district court orders denying his motion to terminate spousal support and awarding attorney’s fees to Kari O’Keeffe. Because the district court erred in concluding spousal support was rehabilitative rather than permanent, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the order denying Tim O’Keeffe’s motion to terminate spousal support. The Court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees. |
| |
| Woelfel v. Gifford |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 197 Opinion Date: September 15, 2020 Judge: Daniel J. Crothers Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Abbey Gifford appealed a judgment granting her and Brian Woelfel equal residential responsibility for their minor child and determining child support. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by including an “automatic” change of custody provision that purported to modify the original residential responsibility decision without consideration of the child’s best interests at the time of a potential move. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. |
| |
| Field v. Field |
| Court: South Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 S.D. 51 Opinion Date: September 9, 2020 Judge: Salter Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's property division order in this divorce proceeding, holding that the court abused its discretion in excluding farmland Wife purchased with Husband from the marital estate. A relative of Husband sold the farmland at issue to the parties at a discounted purchase price. Because of the discount the circuit court determined that the transfer was a partial gift solely to Husband. Wife appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding $1,526,000 of the farm's appraised value from the marital estate. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court applied a rule that would conclusively prevent the entire value of the farm from ever being considered marital property regardless of Wife's contributions, and that the rule is in irreconcilable tension with existing decisional law. |
| |
| Jenkins v. Jenkins |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 120 Opinion Date: September 14, 2020 Judge: Kate M. Fox Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment of the district court finding Bradley Jenkins in contempt for failing to follow the terms of its stipulated divorce decree and remanded for the district court to clarify its order as it pertained to refinancing the marital home, holding that it was unclear whether the court intended to impose the refinancing obligation on Bradley. The divorce decree awarded the marital home to Jonnie Jenkins and required her to refinance it and pay Bradley his share of the equity. Jonnie was unable to obtain refinancing because of numerous liens attached to the home. Jonnie asked the district court to hold Bradley in contempt for failing to comply with the divorce decree. The district court held both parties in contempt and ordered Bradley to release all judgment liens on the title to the marital home and assume the second mortgage. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the district court did not err by requiring Bradley to make reasonable and consistent efforts to release the liens on the marital home; and (2) it was unclear which party was obligated to obtain refinancing for the marital home. |
| |
| TE v. State, Department of Family Services |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 117 Opinion Date: September 10, 2020 Judge: Gray Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying TE's petition to establish paternity of AE on the grounds that TE had not timely filed his petition and remanded for an order adjudicating TE as AE's father, holding that while the district court has discretion to determine the timeliness of a paternity petition before ordering testing, the statutes do not afford the district court discretion on the timeliness of a petition after ordering genetic testing. The Department of Family Services later took protective custody of AE and sought to terminate the rights of AE's parents. Mother and the presumed father voluntarily relinquished their parental rights to AE. TE, who was listed on the termination petition as the alleged father, filed a petition to establish paternity. Genetic testing was conducted and disclosed a 99.99 percent probability of paternity. After a trial, the district court found that TE's petition was not timely filed and denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Department lacked standing to contest TE's petition to establish paternity; and (2) the district court lacked the discretion to adjudicate parentage after it was presented with court-ordered genetic testing results that complied with the statutes and indicated that TE was AE's biological father. |
| |
