Court Opinion

ID: 9383858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:06:55.088497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.620567
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                       CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                              MARCH 31, 2023
                                                                        STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2023 ND 58

Jesse Bauer,                                             Plaintiff and Appellee
   v.
Ashley Bauer,                                         Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20220330

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Bonnie L. Storbakken, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.

Erica J. Shively, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

William Woodworth, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                               Bauer v. Bauer
                                No. 20220330

Bahr, Justice.

[¶1] Ashley Bauer appeals from a district court’s amended judgment denying
her motion to modify residential responsibility and amending the parenting
plan. We affirm.

[¶2] As a threshold matter, Jesse Bauer argues the appeal is untimely
because it was not made within sixty days of the initial order denying
modification of residential responsibility, which he claims is a final appealable
order. The order denying modification of residential responsibility provided
instruction for entry of an amended judgment consistent with its order, which
included a forthcoming amendment to the parenting plan, and did not include
a N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. Therefore, the order was interlocutory and
not immediately appealable. See Eubanks v. Fisketjon, 2021 ND 124, ¶ 4, 962
N.W.2d 427 (only judgments which constitute a final judgment of the rights of
the parties or orders enumerated by statute unless certified under Rule 54(b)
are appealable). Ashley Bauer’s appeal is timely because she filed her notice of
appeal within sixty days of service of notice of entry of the amended judgment.
See N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Having determined the appeal is timely, we turn to
the merits.

[¶3] Ashley Bauer argues the district court erred in its finding no material
change in circumstances exists, and in its determination of the best interest
factors. Ashley Bauer essentially asks this Court to reweigh the evidence,
which it will not do under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Sherman
v. Guillaume, 2022 ND 26, ¶ 2, 969 N.W.2d 708; Lessard v. Johnson, 2019 ND
301, ¶ 12, 936 N.W.2d 528. Ashley Bauer also argues the amended judgment is
not supported by sufficient findings. The amended judgment is supported by
sufficient findings. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and
(7).

                                       1
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                           2