Smedshammer v. Smedshammer

2013 ND 107
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 19, 2013
Docket20120441
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2013 ND 107 (Smedshammer v. Smedshammer) 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
Smedshammer v. Smedshammer, 2013 ND 107 (N.D. 2013).

Opinion

Filed 6/19/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 107

Jennifer Jill Smedshammer, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Troy Howard Smedshammer, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20120441

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Frank L. Racek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jennifer J. Smedshammer, self-represented, P.O. Box 15, Mapleton, N.D. 58509, plaintiff and appellant.

Anna K. Schultz (argued) and Robert J. Schultz (on brief), P.O. Box 2686, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2686, for defendant and appellee.

Smedshammer v. Smedshammer

[¶1] Jennifer Smedshammer appealed from a district court order adopting and affirming a judicial referee’s findings and order granting Troy Smedshammer’s motion to modify primary residential responsibility of one of the parties’ children.  Jennifer Smedshammer argues the court erred in finding Troy Smedshammer established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion and the court’s findings about the best interest factors are clearly erroneous.  We conclude Jennifer Smedshammer may not challenge the court’s finding that Troy Smedshammer established a prima facie case.   See Kartes v. Kartes , 2013 ND 106, ¶ 18 (any issue regarding the evidentiary basis for a court’s decision that the moving party has established a prima facie case justifying modification of primary residential responsibility is rendered moot once an evidentiary hearing is held).  We also conclude the court’s findings on the best interest factors are not clearly erroneous.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

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

Related

Interest of N.C.M., D.C.M., and J.J.M.
2013 ND 132 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 ND 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smedshammer-v-smedshammer-nd-2013.