Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Becker v. Becker

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1978No. Civ. 9384Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVogel, Justice

I dissent from Part III of the majority opinion, which holds that the trial court has no authority to modify that part of the judgment which states that “neither party shall pay alimony to the other.” I do so because the majority disregards the plain language of Section 14-05-24, North Dakota Century Code. I concur in the result only in Part I because much of the discussion is, in my opinion, based on a misunderstanding of Rule 52(a) and would require a useless, expensive, and unnecessary modification of the practice in the district courts.

Modification of Provision for No Alimony

The majority…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kamp v. . KampNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  2. Howell v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Larson v. LarsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Hoster v. HosterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Fine v. FineNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API