Court Opinion

ID: 9695882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:54.126416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.093891
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to note my concern with the procedure by which the change of the place of trial occurred in this case. Although I agree that the court had the right to change the place of trial and may have had adequate reason for doing so in this instance, I believe the proper procedure is a motion, upon notice, to change the place of trial, not a summons which directs the defendant to appear in a place other than that prescribed by the statute. The change of place of trial is not automatic and a party to the action has the right to object to the change. See, e.g., Jerry Harmon Motors v. First Nat. Bank, 440 N.W.2d 704 (N.D.1989).
Here, Davis’s objections to the change of place of trial were heard but rejected by the trial court at the time set 'for trial. Although this may minimally satisfy due process I do not approve of the procedure. Because it was a trial to the court and *292because the change in place of trial entailed only a few miles, counsel for the plaintiff and the court may have assumed, presumptuously as it turns out, that the defendant would have no objection. Had there been any substantive effect on the ability of Davis to adequately try its case, I would reverse on that basis also. Because I do not discern that happening in this instance and because of our action in reversing for other reasons I concur in the majority opinion.