A district court's order on spousal support and contempt is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Decided 2023-04-13
FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
APRIL 13, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 74
Shirley Krueger, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Albert Krueger, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20220333
Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Micheal A. Mulloy, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on
brief.
Albert D. Krueger, Harvey, ND, self-represented; submitted on brief.
Krueger v. Krueger
No. 20220333
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Albert Krueger appeals from a district court order denying his motion to
modify spousal support and granting Shirley Krueger’s motion for contempt.
He argues the court erred by not terminating his spousal support obligation
and finding him in contempt for failing to pay Shirley Krueger spousal support.
He also argues the court erred by allowing Shirley Krueger’s son to testify on
the rental value of Albert Krueger’s farmland. After reviewing the record, the
district court’s findings on spousal support are not clearly erroneous, and the
court’s decisions on witness testimony and contempt were not an abuse of
discretion. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1
