Follman v. Follman

2017 ND 58
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 2017
Docket20160246
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 ND 58 (Follman v. Follman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Follman v. Follman, 2017 ND 58 (N.D. 2017).

Opinion

Filed 3/15/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 58

Tyson A. Follman, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Helen M. Follman,

n/k/a Helen M. Early-Tinker, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20160246

Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Lee A. Christofferson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Michael P. Hurly, P.O. Box 838, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301-0838, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Joshua Nyberg, 1712 Main Avenue, Suite 202, Fargo, N.D. 58103, for defendant and appellant.

Follman v. Follman

[¶1] Helen Early-Tinker appealed from a district court amended judgment awarding Tyson Follman primary residential responsibility of their child, and from an order denying her motion to continue an evidentiary hearing.  Early-Tinker argues the court erred in awarding Follman primary residential responsibility.  Although each party requested primary residential responsibility of the child, she argues the court should have considered maintaining equal residential responsibility between the parties.  She also argues the court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance before the hearing and abused its discretion in limiting the length of the hearing.  Because Early-Tinker did not request the court to consider maintaining joint residential responsibility, we conclude the court did not err by not considering joint residential responsibility.  We also conclude the court’s award of primary residential responsibility to Follman was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance and limiting the length of the hearing.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeLong v. Shields
2019 ND 2 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)
Sorlie v. Sorlie
2018 ND 248 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 ND 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/follman-v-follman-nd-2017.