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.
Laura Kay HEGGEM, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Terje Gunnar HEGGEM, Defendant and Appellant
[¶1] Terje Heggem appeals from a district court order denying his motions to modify residential responsibility, for interim relief and to enforce the judgment. We summarily affirm.
[¶2] Terje Heggem and Laura Heggem divorced in 2015, and Laura Heggem was awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties’ child. In February 2021, Terje Heggem moved to modify residential responsibility, for interim relief and to enforce the divorce judgment. He claimed that since the original judgment, a material change in circumstances occurred when Laura Heggem and the child moved from Breckenridge, MN, to Frazee, MN, to live with Laura Heggem's fiancé. Terje Heggem argued the move was not in the child's best interests.
[¶3] The district court denied Terje Heggem's motions without a hearing, concluding he had not established a prima facie case. The court determined a material change in circumstances did not occur because the stipulated divorce judgment allowed Laura Heggem to relocate within Minnesota with the child. The court also determined Terje Heggem failed to demonstrate how Laura Heggem's new relationship adversely affected the child.
[¶4] To establish a prima facie case justifying a modification of primary residential responsibility, a movant must show there has been a material change in circumstances and “the change in circumstances has adversely affected the children.” Klundt v. Benjamin, 2021 ND 149, ¶ 8, 963 N.W.2d 278; Johnshoy v. Johnshoy, 2021 ND 108, ¶ 9, 961 N.W.2d 282. In Klundt, at ¶ 12, the movant did not establish a prima facie case because she failed to show how a modification was necessary to serve the best interests of the child. See also Johnshoy, at ¶¶ 13-14. Terje Heggem has not shown how a change in residential responsibility is necessary to serve the best interests of the child and has failed to establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Per curiam.
[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
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. 20210212
Decided: December 23, 2021
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)