Opinion ID: 2109153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Riemers' Claims Against Gjesdahl and his Law Firm

Text: [¶ 27] Riemers argues the trial court erred granting summary judgment to Gjesdahl and his law firm because he provided sufficient facts showing that they deliberately delayed settlement of issues between Riemers and Peters-Riemers and that they are guilty of knowing deceit and collusion or consented to deceit and collusion with the intent to deceive or commit fraud on the court and others in violation of N.D.C.C. § 27-13-08. [¶ 28] Section 27-13-08, N.D.C.C., provides: Every attorney who: 1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion or consents to any deceit or collusion with intent to deceive the court or any party; 2. Willfully delays his client's suit with a view to his own gain; or 3. Willfully receives any money or other property for or on account of any money or debt which he has not laid out or become answerable for, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor and in addition forfeits to the party injured treble damages to be recovered in a civil action. [¶ 29] Riemers' affidavits make only conclusory allegations such as, [i]n 2002 when Gjesdahl and [Peters-Riemers] had me illegally jailed for debt (that I didn't even owe) for two and a half weeks, Gjesdahl admitted in court his plan was to get me in jail for debt for 6 months, and then, after I had fallen further in arrears on support, have me imprisoned for a felony under Federal law, and [o]n several occasions in letters to me [Gjesdahl] has offered un-supervised visitation in exchange for paying his legal expenses for [Peters-Riemers]. [¶ 30] The trial court found that Riemers failed to support his claims with any facts and that his affidavits contained only conclusory allegations. We agree with the trial court and conclude Riemers' allegations are not supported by any evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment.