Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BANK CENTER FIRST, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William A. KOSTELECKY, Defendant and Appellee.
[¶ 1] Bank Center First (“the Bank”) appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to compel answers to interrogatories served under N.D.R.Civ.P. 69. We reverse and remand.
[¶ 2] On August 31, 1999, the Bank obtained a default judgment against William A. Kostelecky in the amount of $415.63. Kostelecky accepted service of the summons and complaint which were sent by certified mail, restricted delivery under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4. Following entry of the judgment, the Bank realized the certified mail return receipt listed a forwarding address for Kostelecky in Alabama. The Bank then served post-judgment interrogatories on Kostelecky by mail to his Alabama address. Kostelecky failed to answer the interrogatories or to file objections, and the Bank moved for an order compelling answers on October 12, 1999. Kostelecky did not respond to the motion. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning it did not have personal jurisdiction over a resident of Alabama and, thus, could not compel Kostelecky to answer the interrogatories.
[¶ 3] In Mid-Dakota Clinic, P.C. v. Kolsrud, this Court concluded the service of post-judgment discovery documents under N.D.R.Civ.P. 69 does not begin a new action, but instead is a continuation of the original action on a judgment. 1999 ND 244, ¶ 18, 603 N.W.2d 475. The trial court gained personal jurisdiction over Kostelecky through the proper service of the summons and complaint and did not lose its jurisdiction over him when the judgment was entered. See American State Bank of Dickinson v. Stoltz, 345 N.W.2d 365, 367 (N.D.1984). Therefore, because the trial court retains jurisdiction over Kostelecky, it has the authority to issue an order compelling answers to the interrogatories.
[¶ 4] We reverse the trial court's order and remand for the trial court to determine whether it should issue an order compelling answers to the interrogatories under N.D.R.Civ.P. 37.
MARING, Justice.
[¶ 5] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, DALE V. SANDSTROM, CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 990392.
Decided: April 25, 2000
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)