Stephanie R. Clooten, Plaintiff and Appellee v. State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest (2026)

[¶1] Jesse Clooten appeals from the district court's order regarding plaintiff's motion for contempt and order regarding plaintiff's motion to redistribute property. We affirm the contempt order and dismiss the appeal from the redistribution order because the redistribution order is not an appealable order.

I

[¶2] On April 3, 2024, the parties divorced by stipulated judgment. The judgment awards Jesse Clooten the marital home and requires him to remove Stephanie Clooten's name from the mortgage within ninety days of entry of judgment. The judgment provides Jesse Clooten “shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with the refinancing / transfer of any such debt against the property into his sole name.” It also provides that if a party brings an order to show cause because the other party fails to abide by the party's debt responsibilities, and the court finds the order to show cause justified, the party failing to abide by the party's debt responsibilities shall pay the other party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs necessary to bring the order to show cause petition. The judgment further provides the parties will jointly file 2023 income taxes, with Jesse Clooten solely responsible for an expected tax liability of approximately $200,000. The tax obligation was considered in the equity distribution.

[¶3] More than a year after the ninety-day deadline for Jesse Clooten to remove Stephanie Clooten's name from the mortgage expired, Stephanie Clooten's name remained on the mortgage. On July 25, 2025, Stephanie Clooten filed a motion to hold Jesse Clooten in contempt and, separately, a motion to redistribute property. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which both parties testified and offered exhibits.

[¶4] The evidence at the hearing established the following: Jesse Clooten admitted he knew of the ninety-day deadline and admitted he did not remove Stephanie Clooten's name within that period; Jesse Clooten claimed he needed Stephanie Clooten to sign a certificate of occupancy to get her name removed, but did not request Stephanie Clooten sign a certificate of occupancy until August 23, 2024, after the ninety-day deadline passed; Stephanie Clooten signed the certificate of occupancy on January 31, 2025; Jesse Clooten admitted he submitted no further documentation to the bank after receiving the signed certificate of occupancy and had not submitted the assumption application as of the October 13, 2025 hearing; and Jesse Clooten offered no bank documentation supporting his asserted lender requirements, the claimed $3,000 restart cost, or the application status.

[¶5] In its contempt order, the district court found it undisputed that Stephanie Clooten's name remained on the mortgage. The court found Jesse Clooten provided no bank documentation supporting his assertions about lender requirements, the asserted $3,000 restart cost, or the status of the application. The court concluded Jesse Clooten “intentionally disobeyed the order of the court” and held him in contempt “at least since February 1, 2025,” the day after Stephanie Clooten returned the signed certificate of occupancy. The court found all necessary steps remained within Jesse Clooten's control after that date, and noted he had other paths to compliance, including refinancing or selling the home, none of which he pursued. The court found Jesse Clooten's justification for noncompliance “unpersuasive, lacks evidentiary support, and does not withstand scrutiny.”

[¶6] The district court imposed three categories of sanctions: $5,460 in attorney's fees through October 9, 2025, with leave to supplement for reasonable fees incurred after that date; $10,505 representing the difference between rent Stephanie Clooten paid and an estimated mortgage payment for February through December 2025, plus $955 for each additional month of continuing contempt; and $2,622.53 for lost principal reduction. The court determined these figures from Stephanie Clooten's testimony and supporting exhibits, including average Bismarck home prices, applicable interest rates, and an amortization schedule. The court denied Stephanie Clooten's separate request for $17,600 tied to a 4.4% Bismarck home-value escalation drawn from Zillow data, finding the 4.4% figure “not persuasive because it is derived solely from Zillow documents and lacks the support of expert analysis or verifiable data.” The court ordered Jesse Clooten to immediately comply with the mortgage-removal mandate and to e-file documented proof of completion or pending lender processing by January 16, 2026.

[¶7] In the redistribution order, the district court declined to redistribute property and debts based on the unsigned, incomplete 79-page draft 2023 tax return offered as an exhibit. The court found both parties advanced different interpretations of what the draft figures represented and disagreed which party should benefit from any redistribution. Rather than rule on the redistribution motion, the court directed the parties to cooperate to file final 2023 returns by January 31, 2026, with Stephanie Clooten to e-file the final return and IRS proof by February 6, 2026. After filing, the order provides either party may request an evidentiary hearing or submit supplemental closing statements limited to argument on the finalized figures. The order further provides that, if Stephanie Clooten fails to cooperate, the court will dismiss her motion, and if Jesse Clooten fails to cooperate, the court will grant the motion.

II

[¶8] On appeal, Jesse Clooten argues (1) the contempt finding lacks adequate findings on willfulness and ability to comply and rests on disputed facts; (2) the monetary sanctions rest on estimates rather than competent proof of loss; and (3) the redistribution order misapplies N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(3) and lacks adequate findings. Stephanie Clooten responds the contempt findings and sanctions rest on adequate record support and statutory authority, and the redistribution order does not finally dispose of her motion and does not qualify as an appealable order.

A

[¶9] “This Court's review of a district court's determination on contempt is very limited.” Keller v. Keller, 2024 ND 27, ¶ 6, 2 N.W.3d 695 (quoting Booen v. Appel, 2017 ND 189, ¶ 24, 899 N.W.2d 648). “The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions. We will only disturb a district court's contempt determination if the court abused its discretion.” Id. (quoting Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 2020 ND 107, ¶ 21, 942 N.W.2d 879). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner; its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination; or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id. (quoting Jacobs-Raak, ¶ 21).

[¶10] Under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.1(1)(c), contempt of court includes “intentional disobedience, resistance, or obstruction of the authority, process, or order of a court[.]” To warrant a remedial sanction, the record must show a willful and inexcusable intent to violate a court order. Keller, 2024 ND 27, ¶ 6. The district court hears the testimony and stands in the best position to weigh credibility and determine intent. Id. ¶ 8.

[¶11] The district court made detailed factual findings, identified the evidence relied on, considered Jesse Clooten's asserted excuses for noncompliance, and explained why the court rejected his excuses. The court found it undisputed Stephanie Clooten's name remained on the mortgage more than a year and a half after the ninety-day deadline expired. The court walked through Jesse Clooten's conflicting accounts of when he commenced the assumption process, his prior counsel's August 2024 representation the application had reached completion, his August 23, 2024 text request for the certificate of occupancy, Stephanie Clooten's January 31, 2025 signature on the certificate of occupancy, and Jesse Clooten's continued failure after January 2025 to complete the removal of Stephanie Clooten's name from the mortgage. The court noted the absence of any bank documentation supporting Jesse Clooten's assertions about lender requirements, the $3,000 restart cost, or the status of the application.

[¶12] From those findings, the district court concluded Jesse Clooten “intentionally disobeyed the order of the court” and held him in contempt “at least since February 1, 2025.” The court explained Jesse Clooten had several alternative paths to compliance, including refinancing or selling the home, none of which he pursued. The court found Jesse Clooten's justification for noncompliance “unpersuasive, lacks evidentiary support, and does not withstand scrutiny.” Jesse Clooten admitted to knowing the ninety-day deadline and missing it, conceded not asking Stephanie Clooten for the certificate of occupancy until after the deadline expired, and conceded not submitting the application to the bank even after Stephanie Clooten signed the certificate of occupancy, including as of the hearing date.

[¶13] The district court's contempt finding is the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, does not reflect an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable exercise of discretion, and does not misinterpret or misapply the law. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Jesse Clooten in contempt. See Nuveen v. Nuveen, 2012 ND 182, ¶¶ 11, 14, 820 N.W.2d 726 (concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it held former husband in contempt for failing to comply with property settlement provisions of amended judgment); Harger v. Harger, 2002 ND 76, ¶ 15, 644 N.W.2d 182 (concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding former husband in contempt when he did not comply with the divorce decree for more than a year, including transferring $25,000 as part of the property settlement).

B

[¶14] “After a finding of contempt, a decision to award remedial sanctions ‘lies within the sound discretion of the trial court[.]’ ” Bedgar v. Wilson, 2026 ND 51, ¶ 19, 32 N.W.3d 296 (quoting Harger, 2002 ND 76, ¶ 14); see also Harger, ¶ 14 (“The determination whether a contempt has been committed and remedial sanctions are warranted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.”). “Remedial sanctions include monetary payment for a loss or injury suffered as a result of the contempt, including an amount to reimburse the party for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt. See N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(a).” Bedgar, ¶ 19; see also N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.1(4) (“A sanction requiring payment of a sum of money is remedial if the sanction is imposed to compensate a party or complainant, other than the court, for loss or injury suffered as a result of the contempt.”). Remedial sanctions also include “[a] forfeiture not to exceed two thousand dollars for each day the contempt continues” and an order “designed to ensure compliance with a previous order of the court[.]” N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(c)-(d).

1

[¶15] “A district court's decision on attorney's fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” Keller, 2024 ND 27, ¶ 10 (quoting Dogbe v. Dogbe, 2023 ND 133, ¶ 13, 993 N.W.2d 491). The district court ordered Jesse Clooten pay to Stephanie Clooten $5,460 for her attorney's fees through October 9, 2025, with leave for Stephanie Clooten to supplement for reasonable fees incurred after that date subject to a seven-day response opportunity. Stephanie Clooten submitted an exhibit, uncontested by Jesse Clooten, that her attorney's fees related to the contempt motion were $5,460. Section 27-10-01.4(1)(a), N.D.C.C., authorizes the remedial sanction of “an amount to reimburse the party for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt[.]” Moreover, the judgment separately provides the party failing to abide by debt responsibilities pays the other party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs upon a court finding the order to show cause petition has merit. The court found Jesse Clooten's contempt forced Stephanie Clooten to incur legal fees to enforce the judgment, and the fees flowed directly from the contempt. It also noted Jesse Clooten did not dispute the fee amount submitted by Stephanie Clooten.

[¶16] The district court had authority to order Jesse Clooten to pay Stephanie Clooten's attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(a) and the judgment. Jesse Clooten did not contest the amount of fees detailed in Stephanie Clooten's exhibit showing her attorney's fees, and the court found the identified fees flow from Jesse Clooten's contempt. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Jesse Clooten to pay Stephanie Clooten's attorney's fees incurred in bringing her contempt motion.

2

[¶17] Jesse Clooten argues the district court's remedial sanction of $10,505 for the rent-versus-mortgage differential was not tied to proven, compensable loss caused by his contempt.

[¶18] Although the loss or injury suffered as a result of contempt cannot be speculative, it does not require proof to a degree of mathematical precision. Cf. Mitzel v. Vogel L. Firm, Ltd., 2024 ND 171, ¶ 47, 11 N.W.3d 717. The district court must have some factual basis for determining the loss or injury suffered. Cf. id.; LAWC Holdings, LLC v. Vincent Watford, L.L.C., 2024 ND 16, ¶ 15, 2 N.W.3d 672. Evidentiary imprecision on the amount of loss or injury suffered does not preclude a remedial sanction. Cf. Red River Wings, Inc. v. Hoot, Inc., 2008 ND 117, ¶ 42, 751 N.W.2d 206. A district court does not abuse its discretion in ordering a remedial sanction for a loss of injury suffered as a result of contempt if the remedial sanction is within the range of the evidence presented to the court. Cf. id.; see also Mitzel, ¶ 42 (“There is no certain or definite rule by which the amount of damages can be measured, and each case must be determined on its merits.” (quoting Carpenter v. Rohrer, 2006 ND 111, ¶ 8, 714 N.W.2d 804)); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Schirado, 2006 ND 141, ¶ 17, 717 N.W.2d 576 (“In a case where the amount of damages may be hard to prove, the amount of damages is to be left to the sound discretion of the finder of facts.” (quoting Keller v. Bolding, 2004 ND 80, ¶ 21, 678 N.W.2d 578)).

[¶19] Stephanie Clooten requested remedial sanctions in the amount of the difference between what she paid for rent and what she would have paid on a mortgage. She asserted Jesse Clooten's failure to remove her from the marital home mortgage prevented her from buying a house. The district court found Stephanie Clooten's name on the mortgage prevented her from obtaining financing to purchase another home and forced her to keep leasing. The court found Stephanie Clooten's evidence on average Bismarck home prices, applicable interest rates, loan amortization, and resulting monthly payments reasonable. Based on that evidence, the court found a $10,505 rent-versus-mortgage differential for February through December 2025. The court noted Jesse Clooten did not controvert any of Stephanie Clooten's testimony on this issue. Based on the same evidence, the court ordered a remedial sanction of $955 for each month Jesse Clooten fails to remove Stephanie Clooten's “name from the mortgage on the marital home and/or refinance or otherwise transfer the property” into his name exclusively.

[¶20] Jesse Clooten did not contest Stephanie Clooten's testimony her name on the mortgage of the marital home prevented her from financing a home, forcing her to lease at a rate higher than her mortgage would have been. The district court found Stephanie Clooten suffered monetary damages due to the amount she paid for rent versus a mortgage, and that she suffered those damages due to Jesse Clooten's contempt. The court's remedial sanction of $10,505 is authorized by N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(a), and its remedial sanction of $955 for each month Jesse Clooten remains in contempt is authorized by N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(c) and (d).

[¶21] Stephanie Clooten requested remedial sanctions for the lost principal reduction she would have realized through the purchase of her own home. The district court found this loss was a consequence of her inability to move forward with the purchase of a home, which was prevented by Jesse Clooten's contempt. Based on an exhibit of an amortization schedule, which Jesse Clooten did not object to or contest, the court found “$2,622.53 represents a reasonable and anticipated amount of principal reduction that would have been paid over the eleven months of 2025.” The court's remedial sanction of $2,622.53 is authorized by N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.4(1)(a).

[¶22] Based on the record and its findings, the remedial sanctions ordered by the district court are authorized by law, the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, and within the range of the evidence presented to the court. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the challenged sanctions.

III

[¶23] Stephanie Clooten argues this Court lacks jurisdiction over Jesse Clooten's appeal from the redistribution order because the order does not finally dispose of her motion.

[¶24] “The right to appeal in this State is governed solely by statute.” Morales v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., 2024 ND 81, ¶ 16, 6 N.W.3d 657 (quoting Sanderson v. Walsh Cnty., 2006 ND 83, ¶ 5, 712 N.W.2d 842). If there is no statutory basis to hear an appeal, this Court must dismiss the appeal. Sanderson, ¶ 5. “Only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties to an action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 are appealable.” Morales, ¶ 16 (quoting Gonzalez v. Perales, 2023 ND 145, ¶ 6, 994 N.W.2d 183).

[¶25] The district court neither granted nor denied Stephanie Clooten's motion to redistribute. Instead, the court explained it would not redistribute property and debts based on an unsigned, incomplete draft 2023 tax return, and directed the parties to cooperate to file final 2023 returns. The order provided that, once the parties filed the returns, either party could request an evidentiary hearing or submit supplemental closing arguments limited to argument on the finalized figures. The motion remains pending.

[¶26] Because the redistribution order does not finally determine the motion to redistribute, the order does not satisfy N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. Morales, 2024 ND 81, ¶ 16. We dismiss Jesse Clooten's appeal of the redistribution order because it is not an appealable order.

IV

[¶27] The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Jesse Clooten in contempt and in determining remedial sanctions. We affirm the court's order regarding plaintiff's motion for contempt. We dismiss Jesse Clooten's appeal from the order regarding plaintiff's motion to redistribute property because it is not an appealable order.

[¶28] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

Douglas A. Bahr

Mark A. Friese

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.