Court Opinion

ID: 9805307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:48:30.737869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:54.149414
License: Public Domain

*761VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 18] I agree with and have signed Justice Sandstrom’s opinion for the Court. I write to note that if a N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) order had been part of the October 12, 2012 judgment or order for judgment or if the order for judgment had contained a provision allowing either party to marry immediately, I would consider the order final and the marriage dissolved, notwithstanding the reservation by the trial court of the issue of property division. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-02, “It is the duty of the court granting a divorce to specify in the order for judgment whether either or both of the parties shall be permitted to marry, and if so, when.” In the past I have seen orders for judgment and judgments dissolving the marriage and expressly allowing the parties to remarry while reserving issues of property division, spousal support and parenting rights and responsibilities for later determination. If we did not recognize such orders as final orders, the validity of a marriage entered into by one of the parties before those issues were determined could be in doubt. Here, if the trial court intended the October 12, 2012 judgment to be a final judgment dissolving the marriage, the judgment should have indicated as much. Neither the order for judgment nor the judgment contained either of these provisions and therefore the October 12, 2012 judgment was not a final judgment.
[¶ 19] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.