Peters-Riemers v. Riemers
644 N.W.2d 197, 2002 ND 72, 2002 WL 986687 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a divorce proceeding in North Dakota because this right did not exist under territorial law at the time the state constitution was adopted.
Facts:
- In 1995, Roland C. Riemers, while married to another woman, met Jenese A. Peters-Riemers in Belize and falsely told her he was getting a divorce.
- In early 1996, Jenese moved to North Dakota at Roland's invitation, and they began living together, though Roland also continued to reside with his wife and children.
- Jenese became pregnant by Roland, and their son, Johnathan, was born on June 24, 1997.
- After Roland divorced his first wife in 1998, he and Jenese were married on March 6, 1999.
- Three days before the wedding, Roland presented Jenese with a premarital agreement to sign, which she did without the benefit of independent legal counsel and without a fair disclosure of Roland's finances.
- During their relationship and marriage, Roland committed multiple acts of physical abuse against Jenese, including kicking her in the stomach while she was pregnant and punching her in the face, causing a facial fracture.
Procedural Posture:
- Jenese A. Peters-Riemers filed a complaint in district court seeking a divorce from Roland C. Riemers.
- Roland requested a jury trial, which the trial court denied.
- Following a bench trial, the district court granted the divorce, awarded custody to Jenese, ordered support payments from Roland, divided the marital property, and declared the premarital agreement unenforceable.
- Roland Riemers, representing himself, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the denial of a jury trial in a divorce proceeding violate the North Dakota Constitution's provision preserving the right to a trial by jury as inviolate?
Opinions:
Majority - Neumann, Justice
No, the denial of a jury trial in a divorce proceeding does not violate the North Dakota Constitution. The state constitution's jury trial provision merely preserves the right as it existed at the time of the constitution's adoption in 1889. While an 1883 territorial law did provide for jury trials in divorce actions, the Dakota Territorial Legislature amended that law in 1885, removing divorce actions from the list of cases requiring a jury. Therefore, when the constitution was adopted, the right to a jury trial in divorce cases did not exist and was not preserved. The court also affirmed the trial court's findings that the premarital agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable due to Roland's failure to provide fair financial disclosure and the coercive environment in which Jenese signed it without independent legal advice.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the historical test for the scope of the state constitutional right to a jury trial, clarifying that the right is 'frozen' as it existed at the time of the constitution's adoption. The case demonstrates that a right created by a territorial legislature can be subsequently removed, and if it is not in effect at the moment of statehood, it receives no constitutional protection. This holding solidifies that divorce proceedings are matters of equity to be decided by a court, not a jury. The court's analysis of the premarital agreement also reinforces the importance of procedural fairness, such as adequate financial disclosure and access to independent counsel, in ensuring such agreements are enforceable.
