Court Opinion

ID: 9690105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:53:48.50934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.550858
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
This case serves as a good illustration of the need for a mandatory period of time between the execution of a property settlement agreement and a hearing on the merits.
I hazard a guess that every family law practitioner at one time or another has been confronted by a client urging speedy action, no matter what the result. If there were a mandatory waiting period, a cooling off period, in which litigants could consider what they are doing, in spite of their desire to have whatever it is they are doing simply done and over with, precipitous action would be tempered.
In Minnesota, Rule 3 of the Special Rules of Civil Practice for the Seventh Judicial District provides:
“No action for dissolution or separate maintenance shall be heard upon the merits within thirty days following service of the Summons upon the defendant.”
If a comparable rule of court were in effect in our State, the Hills would have had to wait for a hearing until October 30th — thirty days after service of the summons on Mr. Hill. It is likely that, during that 30-day interim, Mr. Hill would have had the opportunity to implement his change of heart.
Local rules among district courts are to be discouraged, Rule 1.1, North Dakota Rules of Court. However, a rule of court that applies to all courts of this State, prescribing a mandatory waiting period following the execution of a voluntary property settlement agreement, is a subject meriting serious consideration by the Joint Procedure Committee. That committee, charged with responsibility for improving procedure, has the authority to recommend proposed rules of court to the Supreme Court.
While it may be impossible to protect litigants from every hazard of their naivete and impulsiveness, a rule prescribing a mandatory waiting period would mitigate the consequences of at least one hazard, precipitous conduct.
MESCHKE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.