Williamson v. Williamson

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 

Megan Emily Williamson,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
     v.
Robert Michael Williamson,                           Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20250007

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Troy J. LeFevre, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Lawrence P. Kropp, Jamestown, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; on brief.

Robert M. Williamson, self-represented, Bismarck, ND, defendant and appellant;
on brief.
                           Williamson v. Williamson
                                 No. 20250007

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Robert Michael Williamson appeals from the district court’s judgment of
divorce, order denying reconsideration, and order awarding attorney’s fees.
Williamson argues the court erred in granting a divorce rather than an
annulment, erred in its division of property and debts, and erred in denying his
motion for reconsideration and awarding attorney’s fees to Megan Williamson.
Megan Williamson requests an award of attorney’s fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38.
We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (2), and (4), and award
attorney’s fees.

                                       I

[¶2] In 2024, Megan Williamson sought a divorce based on irreconcilable
differences. Following a one-day bench trial, the district court granted her a
decree of divorce. Robert Williamson filed a notice of appeal followed by a
motion for reconsideration. This Court issued an order of remand for the limited
purpose of considering and disposing of the motion to reconsider. The district
court denied Robert Williamson’s motion for reconsideration and awarded
attorney fees to Megan Williamson. Robert Williamson filed a second notice of
appeal.

[¶3] The district court’s judgment for a divorce rather than an annulment was
not clearly erroneous. See Johnson v. Johnson, 

 (N.D. 1960)
(explaining marriage is presumed valid unless the party challenging it proves
one spouse was mentally incapable at the time of marriage and did not freely
cohabitate after regaining capacity). The court’s decisions regarding the
valuation and division of marital property were not clearly erroneous. See Van
Beek v. Van Beek, 

, 

 (“This Court reviews a district
court’s distribution of marital property as a finding of fact under a clearly
erroneous standard[.]”). The court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robert
Williamson’s motion for reconsideration. See Schmidt v. Hageness, 

, 

 (“Denial of a motion to reconsider will not be reversed on


                                       1
appeal unless the district court abused its discretion.”). The court did not abuse
its discretion in ordering Robert Williamson to pay attorney’s fees. See Sanderson
v. Agotness, 

, 

 (“This Court reviews an award of
attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard.”).

[¶4] “If the court determines that an appeal is frivolous, or that any party has
been dilatory in prosecuting the appeal, it may award just damages and single
or double costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” N.D.R.App.P. 38. “Where
the appellant’s arguments are both factually and legally so devoid of merit that
he should have been aware of the impossibility of success on appeal, an
assessment of costs and attorney’s fees is proper.” W. Equip. Fin. v. Sergei Tumas
Prods., Inc., 

, 

 (cleaned up).

[¶5] Robert Williamson has not provided any relevant facts or legal authority
to support his arguments. We conclude his appeal is frivolous and without merit.
See Buchholz v. Buchholz, 

, ¶ 43, 

 (“An appeal is
frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates
persistence in the course of litigation which evidences bad faith.” (quoting Harty
Ins., Inc. v. Holmes, 

, 

)).

                                       II

[¶6] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(1), (2), and (4). Megan
Williamson is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,000.

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




                                        2