Knorr v. Norberg

977 N.W.2d 711

Alonna KNORR f/k/a Alonna Knorr Norberg, Plaintiff and Appellant

v. Jon David NORBERG, Defendant and AppelleeandState of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20220064

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed July 21, 2022

Corrected Opinion Filed September 12, 2022

Charles A. Stock, Crookston, MN, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.

Jon D. Norberg, self-represented, Maple Grove, MN, defendant and appellee; submitted on brief.

VandeWalle, Justice.

[¶1] Alonna Knorr, formerly known as Alonna Knorr Norberg, appealed from a money judgment entered in favor of Jon Norberg for Knorr's share of unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce judgment. Knorr argues the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment because the parties had a global settlement agreement that resolved the issues in this case. We conclude the district court did not adequately explain its decision. We retain jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

[¶2] Knorr and Norberg were divorced in 2013. The parties’ assets and debts were divided, and Knorr was ordered to pay certain debts in the divorce judgment.

[¶3] In July 2021, Norberg moved to amend the judgment, requesting an order allowing him to relocate to Minnesota with the parties’ children and a money judgment against Knorr for unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce judgment. Knorr did not respond to the motion. In August 2021, the district court granted the motion.

[¶4] In September 2021, Knorr moved to dismiss, vacate, or set aside the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment. She argued the parties entered into a global settlement agreement resolving all existing legal matters between the parties. She filed a copy of the settlement agreement as an exhibit to her motion. The district court denied her motion without explanation.

[¶5] In October 2021, Knorr renewed her motion to dismiss, vacate, or set aside the order, again arguing the motion was supported by the settlement agreement. Norberg opposed the motion. The district court denied Knorr's motion, explaining that Knorr did not respond to Norberg's motion. A judgment was entered.

II

[¶6] Knorr argues the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment. She contends the parties entered into a global settlement agreement resolving all pending legal matters, including Norberg's motion to amend the judgment.

[¶7] Knorr failed to identify the rule under which she was seeking relief in her motion. Because she requested the district court dismiss or vacate the order, her motion will be treated as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See Orwig v. Orwig , 2019 ND 78, ¶ 19, 924 N.W.2d 421 (holding a motion to vacate would be treated as a motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) ). The district court's decision on a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. Davis, 2021 ND 24, ¶ 5, 955 N.W.2d 117. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or it is misinterprets or misapplies the law. Id.

[¶8] On appeal, Knorr argues she is entitled to relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or (6). Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the district court may relieve a party from a judgment or order if: "(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief."

[¶9] This Court has said it encourages parties to reach "peaceful settlements of disputes in divorce matters because there is strong public policy favoring prompt and peaceful resolution of divorce disputes." Sims v. Sims , 2020 ND 110, ¶ 31, 943 N.W.2d 804 (quoting Vann v. Vann , 2009 ND 118, ¶ 12, 767 N.W.2d 855 ). "Even while controversies are in litigation there is nothing to prevent parties from making a compromise settlement. The law discourages litigation and encourages settlement." In re Bradley K. Brakke Trust dated November 11, 2013 , 2017 ND 34, ¶ 28, 890 N.W.2d 549 (quoting Muhlhauser v. Becker , 76 N.D. 402, 37 N.W.2d 352, 362 (1948) ).

[¶10] Knorr alleged the parties entered into a global settlement agreement on August 9, 2021, while Norberg's motion to amend the judgment was pending. She claimed the settlement agreement was intended to resolve all litigation between the parties, including Norberg's motion in this case. She filed a copy of the settlement agreement in support of her motion. The agreement states:

It is the intention of the Parties that the terms of this Agreement are to be a global settlement of any and all sums of money due and owing from Knorr to Norberg, or that which may become due and owing to Norberg pursuant to the currently pending lawsuit, including, but not necessarily limited to, ... the payment of specific debts which Knorr was required to make payment on pursuant to the terms of the Divorce Decree, but for which Norberg has paid in full, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, certain Wells Fargo and other debts paid by Norberg as outlined in a June 17, 2016 Affidavit of Norberg filed with the Family Law Court and as stated in Norberg's July 29, 2021 filings in Family Law Court (North Dakota District Court Case # 09-2011-DM-00748). Additionally, this settlement precludes the collection by Norberg from Knorr for any and all medical, dental, or activity charges/debts related to the Parties’ children from the time of the Divorce Decree through the date of this Settlement Agreement.

The agreement states it is meant to cover and eliminate all debt Knorr owes to Norberg. The agreement also states:

Norberg agrees to dismiss with prejudice, withdraw, or discontinue any and all garnishment, collection, or other currently existing legal actions/motions pending against Knorr, wherever they may be filed or docketed except as otherwise outlined in the terms of this Agreement. In the event Norberg fails to do this on his own accord, this Settlement Agreement (fully executed) can and shall be used by Knorr, and accepted by all courts, to do so, and hereby serves as a dismissal with prejudice of all such garnishment, collection other currently existing actions/motions.

The parties’ settlement agreement specifically addresses this case.

[¶11] The district court's order denying Knorr's first motion to dismiss or vacate did not provide any explanation for the court's decision. The court wrote "MOTION DENIED" on the top of Knorr's motion and signed and dated it. The court also denied Knorr's renewed motion to dismiss or vacate. In that order the court explained it was denying Knorr's motion because she failed to respond to Norberg's motion to amend the judgment.

[¶12] The district court provided very little explanation of the rationale for its decision and it did not acknowledge the parties’ settlement agreement or explain why the agreement does not apply. Because the court did not make any reference to the settlement agreement in its decision, it is not clear that the court read the parties’ agreement.

[¶13] We conclude we are unable to properly review the district court's decision because the court did not provide an adequate explanation of the legal basis for the decision. See In re Estate of Nelson , 2015 ND 122, ¶¶ 11-13, 863 N.W.2d 521 (stating the district court must adequately explain the legal basis for its decision to allow this Court to understand the decision and properly perform our appellate function). We remand for the court to consider the settlement agreement and for an explanation of the basis for its decision.

III

[¶14] We retain jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) and remand to the district court for the court to consider the settlement agreement and explain the basis for its decision. See In re T.A.G. , 2019 ND 115, ¶ 10, 926 N.W.2d 702 (remanding the case and retaining jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) when the findings were insufficient to permit appellate review).

[¶15] Gerald W. VandeWalle

Jerod E. Tufte

Kari M. Agotness, D.J.

[¶16] The Honorable Kari Agotness, D.J., sitting in place of McEvers, J., disqualified.

Crothers, Justice, specially concurring.

[¶17] I concur in the result and write separately to clarify my agreement that Knorr's first motion "to dismiss/vacate/set aside" is reviewable, and to explain why this case is not the procedural outlier that it might otherwise appear to be.

Procedural History

[¶18] The chronology of events leading up to this appeal are important. Norberg filed an "Expedited Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment" on July 29, 2021. Norberg's motion stated it was to amend the judgment, but for the most part was for recovery of money by Norberg from Knorr due under the divorce judgment. Norberg's motion requested the following relief:

Plaintiff moves this Court for its Order to alter or amend its "Memorandum Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Order" dated September 21, 2016, under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j), and consistent with the following requests for relief:

1. Amending the parties’ divorce Judgment to allow Defendant and the parties’ minor children to relocate to the Maple Grove, MN pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 14-09-07 ;

2. An Order for contempt pursuant to N.D.C.C. ch. 27-10 for Alonna's multiple failures to comply with the divorce Judgment;

3. For a money judgment against Alonna for $303,387.29 for her share of unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce Judgment.

4. An Order compelling Alonna to turn over I.R.N.’s 529 College Savings Plan, $4,098.00 worth of Savings Bonds, and jewelry valuated at $11,000.00, assigned to Jon under the divorce

...