Hanson v. Hettervig

2023 ND 79, 989 N.W.2d 472
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedApril 26, 2023
Docket20220261
StatusPublished

This text of 2023 ND 79 (Hanson v. Hettervig) 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
Hanson v. Hettervig, 2023 ND 79, 989 N.W.2d 472 (N.D. 2023).

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 26, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 79

Matthew Thomas Roy Hanson, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kristin Dawn Hettervig, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20220261

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Scott P. Brand, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kristin D. Hettervig, self-represented, Fargo, ND, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. Hanson v. Hettervig No. 20220261

[¶1] Kristin Hettervig appeals from an order of contempt awarding Matthew Hanson compensatory parenting time and ordering Hettervig to pay reasonable attorney’s fees. On appeal, Hettervig argues the district court abused its discretion and exceeded its authority in exercising subject matter jurisdiction, abused its discretion by holding her in contempt, and abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. This Court temporarily remanded for the limited purpose of entry of an order including the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. After the court on remand entered an amended order of contempt and award of attorney’s fees, we allowed the parties additional time to file supplemental briefs on appeal. No additional briefs were received. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.2. The order and amended order are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7); see PHI Fin. Servs. v. Johnston L. Off., P.C., 2016 ND 114, ¶ 24, 881 N.W.2d 216 (quoting Hodous v. Hodous, 36 N.W.2d 554, 559 (N.D. 1949)) (stating “it is the duty of the party to whom the order is directed to obey it as long as it remains in force and until it has been set aside either by the court that made it or upon appeal”).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr

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

Related

PHI Financial Services, Inc. v. Johnston Law Office, P.C.
2016 ND 114 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
Hodous v. Hodous
36 N.W.2d 554 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 ND 79, 989 N.W.2d 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-hettervig-nd-2023.