The North Dakota Supreme Court convened on September 26, 2025, to hear the case of Tischmak v. Theurer, et al., focusing on a partition dispute involving the Tishmack family irrevocable trust. Chief Justice John Jensen presided over the session, with Justice Daniel Crothers disqualified and Judge Alan Schmalenberger serving as a surrogate.

The appellant, Brian Tishmack, represented by attorney Lisa Hedick, was unable to attend due to a medical emergency but had his arguments presented. Hedick emphasized that the case revolves around equitable action and the district court's obligations under statutory law. She argued that the court failed to adhere to legal standards in its partition decision, particularly regarding the division of property and the treatment of evidence.

Hedick outlined key points, including that Brian's siblings had transferred their interests in the property to the trust, which is managed by co-trustees Sandra Theurer and Alan Tishmack. She contended that the trust's portrayal of Brian as the "bad guy" was unfounded, noting that their parents had chosen not to consolidate the property as a single entity. She asserted that Brian had a viable plan for the property, intending to preserve it as a home, while the trust lacked a clear plan for its use.

The discussion also highlighted the referee's report, which was stipulated to but not fully adopted by the court. Hedick argued that the court's decision to award only part of the property was an abuse of discretion, as it did not consider critical factors such as access, agricultural management, and the financial capabilities of the parties involved.

Dan Nagel, representing the appellees, countered that the district court acted within its discretion and that the partition was fair and just. He argued that the judge's adjustments were clerical errors rather than substantive changes, asserting that the court's findings were consistent with the evidence presented during the trial.

The justices engaged in a thorough examination of the arguments, focusing on the implications of the partition and the financial responsibilities tied to the property. They questioned the adequacy of the evidence regarding access and the management of the land, as well as the financial implications of the court's decisions.

As the session concluded, the court's deliberations centered on whether the district court had indeed abused its discretion in its partition ruling and how the financial aspects of the case would be resolved. The justices are expected to issue a ruling that will clarify the legal standards applicable to partition actions and the responsibilities of the parties involved.