Schnell v. Schnell

I would have limited the scope of review, as we are obligated to do by Rule 52(a), NDRCivP, and affirmed the judgment appealed from. Other than an unusual claim that the trial court should not have considered the interest matter, Joan raises only one controlling issue: Is the finding of fact that the property cannot be partitioned without great prejudice to the owners clearly erroneous?

The significant finding is camouflaged in 15 pages of recitations variously labeled “findings of fact” or “conclusions of law,” most of which only remotely address the only issue in the case. The pertinent…