Court Opinion

ID: 9389776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 14:05:39.601299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.696609
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                             APRIL 26, 2023
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2023 ND 79

Matthew Thomas Roy Hanson,                               Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Kristin Dawn Hettervig,                               Defendant and Appellant
      and
State of North Dakota,                         Statutory Real Party in Interest

                                No. 20220261

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Scott P. Brand, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kristin D. Hettervig, self-represented, Fargo, ND, defendant and appellant;
submitted on brief.
                            Hanson v. Hettervig
                               No. 20220261

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Kristin Hettervig appeals from an order of contempt awarding Matthew
Hanson compensatory parenting time and ordering Hettervig to pay
reasonable attorney’s fees. On appeal, Hettervig argues the district court
abused its discretion and exceeded its authority in exercising subject matter
jurisdiction, abused its discretion by holding her in contempt, and abused its
discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. This Court temporarily remanded for
the limited purpose of entry of an order including the amount of attorney’s fees
awarded. After the court on remand entered an amended order of contempt
and award of attorney’s fees, we allowed the parties additional time to file
supplemental briefs on appeal. No additional briefs were received. The district
court had subject matter jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.2. The order
and amended order are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and
(7); see PHI Fin. Servs. v. Johnston L. Off., P.C., 2016 ND 114, ¶ 24, 881 N.W.2d
216 (quoting Hodous v. Hodous, 36 N.W.2d 554, 559 (N.D. 1949)) (stating “it is
the duty of the party to whom the order is directed to obey it as long as it
remains in force and until it has been set aside either by the court that made
it or upon appeal”).

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

                                       1