Kurt G. Datz, Plaintiff and Appellant
Helen A. Dosch, Defendant and Appellee
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Blake D. Hankey (on brief), Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
Leslie Johnson Aldrich (argued) and Joshua Nyberg (appeared), Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellee.
Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.
[¶1] Kurt G. Datz appeals from an amended judgment awarding primary residential responsibility to Helen A. Dosch; an order denying his motion to vacate, motion to strike, and demand for recusal; and a money judgment awarding attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
[¶2] The underlying facts of this case are provided in
Datz v. Dosch, 2013 ND 148, 836 N.W.2d 598 (" Datz I" ). Only those facts relevant to this disposition of the issues presented are reported here.
[¶3] This Court filed its opinion in Datz I on August 29, 2013, subject to petition for rehearing. Id. In Datz I, this Court " conclude[d] the district court's findings of fact on primary residential responsibility [were] not sufficiently specific and detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision" and " reverse[d] the judgment and remand[ed] for findings on the best interest factors as required by law." Id. at ¶ 19. We affirmed the district court's determination of other issues because the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Id. at ¶ ¶ 25-2 8.
[¶4] The mandate of this Court's judgment and opinion was issued on October 1, 2013. Prior to the issuance of the mandate, on September 13, 2013, Dosch filed proposed amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment in the district court. Also prior to the mandate, on September 24, 2013, the district court entered amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, followed by an amended judgment on September
26, 2013. Datz filed a motion to vacate, motion to strike, and demand for recusal on September 27, 2013. On October 1, 2013, Dosch responded opposing Datz's motions, demand for recusal, and requested attorney's fees. On October 22, 2013, the district court entered an order denying Datz's motions and demand for recusal. On November 7, 2013, the district court entered an order awarding attorney's fees of $873.62 against Datz and entered a money judgment. Datz timely appealed.
[¶5] On appeal, Datz argues: (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction to issue the amended judgment; (2) the merits of the amended judgment should not be examined because the amended judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, the district court erred in awarding Dosch primary residential responsibility; (3) the district court erred in denying his motion to ...