Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Judgment Exchange Clarity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal flags exchange-location ambiguity and travel burdens after judgment
Summary
Attorneys told the court post-judgment language about where and how to exchange the child has caused practical enforcement problems, with the appellant saying ambiguous wording forces him to incur overnight stays and rental cars to exercise parenting time.
A procedural issue about exchange locations and enforcement after judgment drew extended questioning at the North Dakota Supreme Court in Brett Michael Kingstone v. Trissa Renee Tedrow Kingstone.
Appellant counsel J.C. Johnston said the district court's permanent order did not resolve language that had previously appeared in a temporary order requiring the mother to bring the child to the airport for handoffs. "My client is now flying into North Dakota, being forced to rent a rental car, drive out to New Rockford to retrieve the child. If he can't catch an outgoing flight, [he must] spend the night on either end of the trip, and it's creating substantial hardship in an attempt to exercise his parenting time," Johnston said.
Johnston described a sequence: the judgment was entered, a post-judgment motion to clarify was decided by the district court, the appellant brought a second motion after continued problems, and the Supreme Court declined a remand on the second motion, which is why the exchange-language issue appears in the appeal record. She argued a district court can clarify ambiguous judgment language without a showing of material change in circumstances.
Appellee counsel Robert Will said the district court clarified the exchange-location issue and that the clarification, although not incorporated into an amended judgment, could be enforced through contempt or show-cause proceedings if disputes continue. "It isn't an order form. So I think as far as being able to enforcement is there is the enforcement through the order itself," Will said.
Justices asked whether the clarification, if not placed into the judgment, is enforceable and whether the Supreme Court should review a post-judgment clarification that did not amend the judgment. Johnston said the practical effect has been continued disputes, additional expense and overnight travel for the father, and requested the Supreme Court consider clarity or remand with instructions.
The court did not announce a decision from the bench.
