Court Opinion

ID: 9925599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 15:05:48.263189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.440168
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                       CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                             JANUARY 22, 2024
                                                                        STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2024 ND 12

Amanda Stancel,                                           Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Christopher Stancel,                                  Defendant and Appellant
      and
State of North Dakota,                          Statutory Real Party in Interest

                                 No. 20230287

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial
District, the Honorable Joshua B. Rustad, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jeff L. Nehring, Williston, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

William C. Black, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                           Stancel v. Stancel, et al.
                                No. 20230287

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Christopher Stancel appeals from a district court divorce judgment and
an order denying cross motions for contempt.

[¶2] Christopher Stancel argues the district court erred in concluding the
parties had a long-term marriage, awarding Amanda Stancel non-
rehabilitative spousal support, its consideration of the best interest factors,
and awarding Amanda Stancel primary residential responsibility of their
children. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous
view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, after reviewing the
entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been
made.” Friesner v. Friesner, 2019 ND 30, ¶ 6, 921 N.W.2d 898. We conclude the
court’s findings regarding the duration of the parties’ marriage, the type,
amount, and duration of spousal support, consideration of the best interest
factors, and primary residential responsibility are not clearly erroneous.

[¶3] Christopher Stancel also argues the district court abused its discretion
by denying his motion for contempt. We conclude the court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied the motion for contempt. See Anderson v. Anderson,
2023 ND 86, ¶ 11, 990 N.W.2d 581. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                        1