Court Opinion

ID: 9715762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:13:40.614486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:37.881384
License: Public Domain

PAULSON, Judge
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the result.
Since August 1, 1971, the effective date of the amendment to Rule 52(a) of our Rules of Civil Procedure, we have applied the “clearly erroneous” test in determining whether the findings of a trial court should be set aside. In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972), which was a divorce case involving a custody issue, we said, in paragraph 3 of the syllabus:
“Findings that a party to a divorce action has committed adultery, that the best interests of the children of the par*855ties to a divorce action would be served by awarding custody of the children to one party as opposed to the other, and that a particular division of property between the parties to a divorce action is equitable, are appropriately dealt with on appeal as findings of fact. Consequently, a review of these findings is limited to a determination of whether or not they are ‘clearly erroneous’ within the purview of Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P.”
Justice Teigen signed that opinion after considerable debate with reference to the above paragraph of the syllabus.
I find rio justification in this opinion for diluting the rule which we have, both through our rule-making power and by decisions of this court supporting Rule 52(a), adopted.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., concurs.