Court Opinion

ID: 9514084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:13.423342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.600615
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 44] I concur in the result in this case because I believe it is consistent with my dissent in Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107, 766 N.W.2d 477, but inconsistent with the majority’s action there. Here the majority affirms the district court’s denial of James Vann’s motion to vacate the judgment, while in Eberle it reversed the district court’s denial of Heidi Eberle’s motion to vacate the judgment. Both settlement agreements were entered without the complaining parties being represented by counsel; both motions for relief from the judgment were made after lengthy delay.
[¶ 45] The dichotomy here is similar to the 1994 dichotomy in Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843 (N.D.1994), and Crawford, v. Crawford, 524 N.W.2d 833 (N.D.1994). In Clooten, this Court upheld the district court’s denial of Robert Clooten’s motion for relief from the judgment while it reversed the district court’s denial of Leslie Faye Crawford’s motion for relief from the judgment. Justice Neumann and I saw no abuse of discretion in either case.
[¶ 46] As Justice Neumann wrote in his dissent, in which I joined, in Crawford, 524 N.W.2d at 837, “When the outcome of a case can depend not upon rules, laws and standards of review, but upon what strikes appellate judges as fair and equitable, then this Court has assumed more power than wise people ought to be comfortable exercising.”
[¶ 47] I believe there was no abuse of discretion in any of the four cases discussed here. I would have affirmed all the judgments.
[¶ 48] Dale V. Sandstrom