Ritter v. Ritter

Annotate this Case

Court Description: 180 A district court's second amended judgment denying a motion for equal residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).



IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2017 ND 180

Tara Dawn Ritter, n/k/a Tara McDonald, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joshua Daniel Ritter, Defendant and Appellant
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20160442

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Elizabeth A. Elsberry (argued) and Christopher E. Rausch (appeared), Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Suzanne M. Schweigert (argued) and Annique M. Lockard (appeared), Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

Ritter v. RitterNo. 20160442

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Joshua Ritter appeals a district court's second amended judgment denying his motion for equal residential responsibility. Ritter also appeals the district court's order denying his motion for "clarification and/or modification." We conclude the district court's findings on the best interest factors are not clearly erroneous, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ritter's motion for "clarification and/or modification," and the district court followed our mandate by holding an evidentiary hearing on remand. Ritter v. Ritter, 2016 ND 16, ¶ 15, 873 N.W.2d 899. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring, S.J.

[¶3] The Honorable Mary Muehlen Maring, S.J., sitting in place of Kapsner, J., disqualified.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.