Source: http://nd.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120517_0000093.ND.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 22:32:12
Document Index: 330033562

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 8', '§ 27']

| State of North Dakota, Statutory v. Deborah Parizek N/K/A Deborah Henderson
State of North Dakota, Statutory v. Deborah Parizek N/K/A Deborah Henderson
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, STATUTORYREAL PARTY IN INTEREST, APPELLEE RONALD PARIZEK,PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANTv.DEBORAH PARIZEK N/K/A DEBORAH HENDERSON,DEFENDANT
Parizek v. Parizek,
2012 ND 103
Parizek v. ParizekNo. 20110329
[¶1] Ronald Parizek appeals from a district court order affirming an administrative enforcement action placing a lien on his personal property held by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We affirm.
[¶2] On September 28, 2011, the State, through the High Intensity Enforcement Unit of Child Support Enforcement, placed a lien on any funds or accounts the Department was holding for Parizek to secure payment for Parizek's past due child support obligation. On October 19, 2011, Parizek requested judicial review of the lien, arguing the lien was improper because the Department was not a financial institution and therefore the property did not qualify for an account lien under N.D.C.C. § 35-34-05. He did not request a hearing. On October 24, 2011, the State responded, arguing the lien was placed on personal property under N.D.C.C. § 35-34-06 and was not an account lien. On October 26, 2011, the district court affirmed the administrative enforcement action, ruling the property was subject to a child support lien because the lien was placed on personal property under N.D.C.C. § 35-34-06 and was not an account lien as Parizek claimed.
[¶3] On November 3, 2011, Parizek moved to dismiss the lien with prejudice, arguing the lien was improper because the Department was not a financial institution and an account lien could not be enforced against the accounts it managed, and his spending account did not qualify as personal property under N.D.C.C. § 35-34-06. Parizek requested a hearing on his motion. On November 7, 2011, the State responded to Parizek's motion. On November 15, 2011, Parizek filed a notice of appeal. On December 2, 2011, the district court entered an order denying Parizek's motion to dismiss.
[¶4] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. §§ 27-05-06 and 50-09-14(2). Parizek's appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. ...