Hillerson v. Baker

2025 ND 20
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 2025
DocketNo. 20240214
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 ND 20 (Hillerson v. Baker) 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
Hillerson v. Baker, 2025 ND 20 (N.D. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2025 ND 20

Ashley A. Hillerson, f/k/a Ashley A. Baker, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Eric L. Baker, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240214

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bobbi B. Weiler, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Micheal A. Mulloy, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.

Christopher E. Rausch, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant. Hillerson v. Baker No. 20240214

[¶1] Eric Baker appeals from a third amended judgment and order for attorney’s fees entered in parental responsibility proceedings against Ashley Hillerson, f/k/a Ashley Baker. On appeal, Eric Baker argues the district court clearly erred by denying his motion to modify the parenting plan and by implementing a graduated parenting time schedule that is not in the best interests of the children. After review of the record, we conclude the district court’s findings of facts and findings on the best interest factors are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm the district court order denying Eric Baker’s motion to modify the parenting plan and implementing a graduated parenting time schedule under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Eric Baker also argues the district court abused its discretion by finding him in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees. After review of the record, we conclude the district court’s order for contempt and award of attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. We summarily affirm the district court order for contempt and order for attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3] Eric Baker’s remaining arguments are either without merit or unnecessary to our decision. We summarily affirm the third amended judgment and order for attorney’s fees. See N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) & (4).

[¶4] 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 ND 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillerson-v-baker-nd-2025.