Introduction

The Supreme Court of North Dakota’s decision in Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust, 2025 ND 79, confronts the tension between a litigant’s right to access the courts and the judiciary’s need to protect itself from repetitive, groundless filings. On appeal from a Burleigh County district court contempt order and fine imposed on Marlene Betz, the Court considered whether contempt was a proper mechanism to enforce a pre-filing order entered under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58. The case involves multiple parties: Timothy Betz (trustee and appellee), petitioners Emelia A. Hirsch and her siblings, and interested parties Marlene and Allen Betz, each subject to “vexatious litigant” pre-filing restrictions. Central issues include (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in holding Marlene Betz in contempt for violating its October 24, 2023 subsidiary order, and (2) whether the trustees are entitled to double costs and attorney’s fees on appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Tufte (joined by Justices McEvers and Bahr), affirmed the district court’s contempt finding and $1,000 fine against Marlene Betz. It held the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in contumacious enforcement of its pre-filing orders. The Court also found Timothy Betz’s cross-appeal to be frivolous and awarded double costs and $1,000 in attorney’s fees to the trustees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 and 39. Justice Crothers, joined by District Judge Cruff, concurred in the result but cautioned against overreliance on contempt proceedings where N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 provides a streamlined remedy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust, 2020 ND 129, 944 N.W.2d 334 — affirmed the original pre-filing order against Marlene Betz as a vexatious litigant.
• Emelia Hirsch Trust reformation decision, 2009 ND 135, 770 N.W.2d 225 — established the finality of trust accounting and distribution issues, precluding relitigation.
• Keller v. Keller, 2024 ND 27, 2 N.W.3d 695 — reaffirmed that contempt reviews are highly deferential, overturnable only for arbitrary, unreasonable or legally incorrect rulings.
• Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) and Holkesvig v. Grove, 2014 ND 57, 844 N.W.2d 557 — recognized the inherent authority of courts to control abusive filings.
• N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 — prescribes the procedure for vexatious litigant pre-filing restrictions, including mandatory leave-to-file applications and potential contempt sanctions under § 5(a).
• N.D.R.App.P. 38 and 39 — authorize awarding attorney’s fees and double costs on appeal when an appeal is frivolous or the judgment is affirmed.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by reaffirming that contempt sanctions lie within the district court’s broad discretion (Keller, ¶ 6). It found ample record support for the district court’s October 24, 2023 notice and December 11, 2023 “contempt order,” which warned that any further filings labeled merely as “Application to File” would trigger a $1,000 fine under Rule 58’s contempt provision. Marlene Betz’s September 11, 2024 “application to file a motion for a court order for distribution of the Emelia Hirsch Trust” identified issues long since resolved by the final accounting of 2008 and the Supreme Court’s 2009 affirmation. By disregarding the pre-filing orders and district court directives, Betz plainly violated the order, meriting a contempt finding under N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.2 and § 27-10-01.3.

On cross-appeal, Timothy Betz’s submission failed first to use the approved form for vexatious-litigant leave applications (R. 58(4)(a)) and then proposed a non-meritorious “nunc pro tunc” challenge, warranting denial under R. 58(4)(b). The Court deemed his cross-appeal frivolous and imposed sanctions under Appellate Rules 38 and 39.

Impact

This decision underscores the judiciary’s power to enforce pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants through contempt, provided proper notice and hearing. It clarifies that once a pre-filing order is in place, litigants must (1) utilize the approved application form, (2) submit proposed new filings only upon leave, and (3) avoid relitigating final judgments. Future litigants subject to rule-58 orders will recognize that non-compliance invites contempt and monetary sanctions. Appellate litigants should heed the narrow scope of appeal when contempt orders are at issue, or face double costs and attorney’s fees.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Vexatious Litigant: A party repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits or motions, burdening courts and opponents.
• Pre-Filing Order (N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58): A court-issued restraint that requires a vexatious litigant to obtain leave before any new filing in existing or new cases.
• Contempt of Court (N.D.C.C. § 27-10-01.2–.3): A sanction—punitive or remedial—imposed for willful disobedience of court orders; requires notice, hearing, written order, and is appealable.
• Double Costs & Attorney’s Fees (N.D.R.App.P. 38, 39): Enhanced monetary sanctions against parties who pursue frivolous appeals or ignore appellate directives.

Conclusion

Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust, 2025 ND 79, affirms that contempt remains a valid tool to enforce pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants under Rule 58. The decision reinforces procedural rigor: litigants under pre-filing restrictions must follow form and substance requirements or face fines. By awarding fees and double costs, the Supreme Court signals that frivolous appeals and disregard for appellate instructions will not be tolerated. This ruling will guide trial and appellate courts in balancing open access to justice against the imperative to shield the judicial process from abuse.