Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2023 ND 92

Gartei v. Gartei

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 2023

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2023-05-09

A district court order denying a motion to vacate the judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Relies on Hildebrand v. Stolz · C & K Consulting v. Ward County Board of Commissioners (consol w/ 20190313

Decided 2023-05-09

                                                                              FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           MAY 9, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                    IN THE SUPREME COURT
                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 
2023 ND 92

Matilda N. Gartei,                                      Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Kelvin M. Gartei,                                   Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20220358

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Leah M. Warner, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Timothy P. Hill, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
                              Gartei v. Gartei
                               No. 20220358

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Kelvin Gartei appeals from a district court order denying his motion to
vacate the judgment. He argues the court erred in denying his motion to vacate
and determining the matter was heard on the merits. “Our review is limited to
whether there is a sufficient justification for disturbing the finality of the
judgment.” C & K Consulting, LLC v. Ward Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 
2020 ND 93, ¶ 16
, 
942 N.W.2d 823
. “We review the court’s decision for an abuse of
discretion.” 
Id.
 We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7); see
Hildebrand v. Stolz, 
2016 ND 225, ¶¶ 8-9
, 
888 N.W.2d 197
 (remedies applicable
to default judgments do not apply when the district court hears testimony and
receives evidence, even if from only one party).

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




                                      1

/2023/nd/92 · .json · Public domain