N.D. Supreme Court weighs whether valuation date and discovery sanctions skewed divorce judgment

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal of Joshua Holm v. Heidi Holm over whether the Stark County District Court erred in finding late filings, imposing discovery-related sanctions, and selecting valuation dates that underpinned the trial court’s property division.

Appellant counsel Thomas Murtha told the justices that electronic filing records in the Odyssey system show Joshua Holm filed answer briefs on time and that the district court erred by treating the filings as untimely. “The records as they’re reflected, through the Odyssey filing system show unequivocally that it was a timely file,” Murtha said.

The timing dispute emerged alongside broader discovery and valuation disputes. Appellee counsel Aaron Melling said the district court found evasive or incomplete discovery responses and that the court’s sanctions were based on a totality of circumstances, including late filings and evasive answers. “The appellant failed to provide discovery answers, was evasive,” Melling told the court, and the district court “allowed the appellant’s brief to be entered, even though it determined that it may be late and allowed the appellant to also argue.”

A central legal question raised was the valuation date the district court used to value assets. Murtha argued the correct valuation date was Sept. 14, 2023 — 60 days before an earlier trial date — and that the district court’s use of a later date distorted values for multiple assets, including a business the court valued at $384,000. Murtha asked the Supreme Court to remand “for the court to reconsider” asset values if the valuation date was wrong.

Melling told the justices that the district court made a factual determination the initially scheduled trial date had been continued and that the majority of assets had been valued as of Jan. 31, 2024, based on the record and scheduling changes. “It is my opinion in this matter that the court made a factual determination that the initially scheduled trial date was February 29,” Melling said, adding the trial had been continued by stipulation because parties lacked asset valuations and discovery remained outstanding.

Both sides disputed specific asset valuations and factual findings the court relied on. The transcript reflects that the parties purchased the marital residence on March 6, 2020, for $571,000 with an original mortgage around $441,000; as of Feb. 3, 2024, the mortgage balance was $309,495.95. Counsel disputed which party paid the mortgage after purchase: Murtha said both parties contributed; Melling said the record established that Heidi Holm paid the mortgage from purchase until the trial date.

Counsel also debated personal-property and business valuations the district court used. Melling said the court found Joshua Holm had taken $100,000 from Heidi Holm’s safe and that the court awarded $100,000 to Heidi plus roughly $34,000 for other alleged dissipation, creating a $120,000 equalization payment ordered against Joshua. Murtha argued those findings flowed from the valuation-date error and other disputed credibility determinations and said correcting dates or values could change the final math used to require the payment.

Other contested items included the valuation and ownership of a pickup truck that the district court treated as Joshua’s despite testimony from a witness, John Allred, who said he owned the vehicle. Melling told the court registration and title to the vehicle had been requested in discovery but not produced. On credibility, Melling repeatedly invoked the trial court’s role as the factfinder and its discretion where testimony conflicted.

The justices questioned counsel closely about preservation and the record. Several justices asked whether the valuation-date issue was preserved at trial or whether the court should review for obvious error. Murtha acknowledged the valuation-date issue arose in the district court’s final decision rather than being explicitly litigated at trial and said remand might require reopening the record to allow valuations as of the correct date.

At oral argument’s close, the court announced it would take the case under advisement. “This case will be taken under advisement as all cases are,” Chief Justice John Jensen said.