Gustafson v. Poitra

1:30pm Monday, June 9, 2008
20070301 Darrel Gustafson, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Raymond A. Poitra; Linus F. Poitra;
United States of America; and all persons
unknown, claiming any estate or interest
in, or lien or encumbrance upon, the
real estate described in the Complaint, Defendants
-----------------
Raymond A. Poitra, Defendant and Appellant
Appeal from: Northeast Judicial District, Rolette County, Judge Michael G. Sturdevant
Nature of Action: Foreclosure
Counsel:

Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Pringle & Herigstad, P.C.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Can Appellee file an action in State District Court when the statute of limitations has not been toll in a foreclosure action?
2. Can Appellee file an action in State District Court when the overlying debt encumbering the real estate has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding in U.S. Bankruptcy Court?
3. Does a State District Court have jurisdiction to hear an action on a foreclosure action when the overlying debt has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding in U.S. Bankruptcy Court?
4. Must a Court provide a defendant due process with a notice of a hearing date prior to issuing a default judgment when Defendant has made a special appearance with a motion for dismissal and submitted evidence that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction?
Appellant's Supplemental Brief Issue
Must a State District Court grant a new trial after the North Dakota Supreme Court has granted Appellant's motion and issued an order remanding the case back to the District Court for a new trial?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Defendant/Appellant Raymond Poitra failed to plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense; thus, the defense is deemed waived.
2. A bankruptcy discharge is no bar to a subsequent foreclosure; the discharge only relieves the bankrupt debtor from personal liability.
3. Defendant/Appellant Raymond Poitra was afforded due process.

Appellee's Supplemental Brief Issues

1.The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Raymond Poitra's (herein R. Poitra) motion for new trial.
2.R. Poitra's appeal regarding the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial is frivolous; thus, Darrel Gustafson (herein Gustafson) should be awarded just damages and double costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
Briefs:
Case Summary
Appellant Brief (Requires Acrobat Reader)
Appellant 1 Brief (Requires Acrobat Reader)
Appellee Brief
Appellee 2 Brief
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Go to Docket

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008