Opinion ID: 2144157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Findings clearly erroneous.

Text: The clearly erroneous rule as contained in Rule 52(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure reads in relevant part: Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. It has no application to this case. The trial court found that the board was not unreasonable in its decision to nonrenew Reed in that it did not act in an arbitrary or frivolous manner. As we indicated in Dobervich, the function of the trial court is extremely limited. We find that the two functions enunciated there were carried out. A review of the record of Reed's hearing before the board discloses that the chairman of the school board did admonish the board as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Also at this time I'm going to remind the Board that this is a serious matter, and I want you to give serious consideration to it, to the damage that could result to the professional statute and reputation of the teacher, the time he's spent in training, the years of service he's given to this district, and those things should certainly be given your serious consideration. Beyond that admonishment, Mr. Reed's attorney reminded the board members of their responsibilities. In fact, he reminded the board of the sensitive nature of nonrenewal proceedings by reading directly from the North Dakota Century Code. After reading to the board that portion of Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., regarding the need for school boards to give serious consideration to the damage that can result to the professional stature and reputation of teachers by nonrenewal, Reed's attorney said: But that sort of frames the state of mind that you should all be in at this point. The trial court found: That prior to the vote to nonrenew the Plaintiff, the chairman of the school board advised the board members to exercise their very best judgment as provided for by the statute applicable and that the board did give serious consideration to the professional stature and reputation of the Plaintiff and to the time he spent in training and years of service to the district as well as other factors contained in Section 15-47-38 of the North Dakota Century Code. The record before the school board supports that finding. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. SAND, VANDE WALLE and PEDERSON, JJ., and LARRY M. HATCH, District Judge, concur. HATCH, District Judge, sitting in place of PAULSON, J., disqualified.