Court Opinion

ID: 9839870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 16:07:21.040383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.682047
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                        SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                              2023 ND 165

Abigail Lillian Buller,                             Plaintiff and Appellant
      v.
Matthew John Buller,                               Defendant and Appellee

                              No. 20230050

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Cynthia M. Feland, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ashley A. Olson (argued) and Patti J. Jensen (on brief), East Grand Forks,
Minnesota, for plaintiff and appellant.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, North Dakota, for defendant and appellee;
submitted on brief.
                               Buller v. Buller
                                No. 20230050

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Abigail Buller appeals the judgment entered by the district court in this
divorce proceeding. She argues the court erred by awarding primary
residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child to Matthew Buller. She
also argues the court erred in its valuation and distribution of marital property.
An order regarding primary residential responsibility and valuation and
distribution of the marital estate is subject to the clearly erroneous standard
of review. See Berdahl v. Berdahl, 2022 ND 136, ¶¶ 6, 9, 977 N.W.2d 294;
Carlson v. Carlson, 2020 ND 36, ¶ 6, 940 N.W.2d 662. We conclude the findings
regarding primary residential responsibility and valuation and distribution of
property were not induced by an erroneous view of the law, there is evidence
in the record to support the findings, and, after a review of the entire record,
we are not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.
We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

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

                                        1