Court Rulings

The defendant, R, appealed, and the intervenor, B, cross appealed, from the trial court's judgment dissolving R's marriage to the plaintiff, K, and from various of the court's related orders. R and B claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly failed to afford full faith and credit to a New Jersey court judgment and related orders that had been previously rendered in favor of B, and against R, among others, in the amount of approximately $24.7 million. R also challenged the trial court's finding that he had dissipated the marital estate by pledging the marital home and certain investment accounts as security, and by later forfeiting them, in connection with the New Jersey litigation. B claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had erred in finding that the marital home and investment accounts were assets of the marital estate. Held: The issue of whether the trial court improperly found that R had dissipated marital assets by pledging the marital home as security in connection with the New Jersey litigation was not moot because, although R did not contest certain of the court's other findings of dissipation, this court could still afford R relief if it were to reject the trial court's finding that he had dissipated the marital home. The trial court correctly determined that R had dissipated the marital estate by pledging the marital home as security in connection with the New Jersey litigation and then forfeiting it, as the trial court properly found that the elements of dissipation had been satisfied. The trial court, in distributing the marital estate, erred in failing to afford full faith and credit to the judgment and orders rendered in connection with the New Jersey litigation, as the New Jersey court orders forfeiting the marital home and imposing a constructive trust on the investment accounts to secure enforcement of the $24.7 million New Jersey judgment were final orders of the New Jersey court, the New Jersey court had personal jurisdic- In acc

CIVIL - unemployment compensation benefits; review commission; administrative appeal; R.C. 4141.282; R.C. 4141.29; new condition of continuing employment; just cause; fault; unsuitability.

Trial court did not err denying plea in bar to appellant's suit for wrongful termination in violation of the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act; recognition by appellee in March 2021 she was not scheduled to work April 2021 was not sufficient to constitute a prohibited retaliatory action by appellant; matter remanded for further proceedings

Open Meetings Act, R.C. 121.22—R.C. 737.171—When a public employee has a statutory right to a public hearing, the plain terms of R.C. 121.22(G)(1) apply; the public body may not enter into executive session to discuss any of the statutorily enumerated employment actions when the public employee requests a public hearing, but, rather, the public body must consider the employment action in a public hearing—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded to village council for public hearing.

School psychologists not \employed primarily as a classroom teacher\ are not \teachers\ as defined in N.D.C.C. § 15.1-16-01(5). Hilton v. North Dakota Edu. Ass'n, 2002 ND 209, 655 N.W.2d 60, is overruled to the extent it holds a licensed school district employee who is not an administrator is a teacher irrespective of the employee's assigned teaching duties. A special education teacher is not a \teacher\ within N.D.C.C. ch. 15.1-16 when the teacher is not a school employee. This Court does not hold whether a school district may provide teaching services through independent contractors.