J.B. v. M.R.

J.B. v. M.R., 2002 ND 157, 655 N.W.2d 84

Filed Oct. 15, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2002 ND 157

J.B., Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
M.R., Defendant and Appellant

No. 20020072

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Robert O. Wefald, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Robert V. Bolinske, Jr. (submitted on brief), 515 N. 4th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.
Todd D. Kranda, Kelsch, Kelsch, Ruff & Kranda, 103 Collins Avenue, P.O. Box 1266, Mandan, N.D. 58554-7266, for plaintiff and appellee.

J.B. v. M.R.No. 20020072

Per Curiam.

[¶1] M.R. appeals the Judgment of the trial court entered January 29, 2002, and Order dated January 28, 2002, alleging that the trial court's custody decision was clearly erroneous and that the trial court did not give enough weight to her motion for reconsideration. The trial court's custody decision is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Nefzger v. Nefzger, 1999 ND 119, ¶ 9, 595 N.W.2d 583. We have stated that motions for reconsideration may be treated as motions to alter or amend judgments under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or as motions to vacate judgments under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Dvorak v. Dvorak, 2001 ND 178, ¶¶ 9, 10, 635 N.W.2d 135. A trial court's decision on Rule 59(j) and Rule 60(b)(ii) motions will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Dvorak, at ¶10; Dinger v. Strata Corp., 2000 ND 41, ¶ 12, 607 N.W.2d 886. We conclude the trial court's custody decision was not clearly erroneous and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

[¶2] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Dale V. Sandstrom
William A. Neumann