North Dakota Supreme Court, 2022

Sherman v. Guillaume

Sherman v. Guillaume
North Dakota Supreme Court · Decided January 27, 2022 · Per Curiam
969 N.W.2d 708; 2022 ND 26 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)
Sherman v. Guillaume

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JANUARY 27, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 26

Tyler Sherman, Plaintiff and Appellant v.

Jaclyn Guillaume, Defendant and Appellee and

State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20210196

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Alyssa L. Lovas, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.

Markus A. Powell, Dickinson, ND, for defendant and appellee.

Sherman v. Guillaume

No. 20210196

Per Curiam. [¶1] Tyler Sherman appeals from a judgment awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child to Jaclyn Guillaume. We summarily affirm. [¶2] Sherman argues the district court misapplied the law by ignoring evidence indicating Guillaume engaged in alienating behavior. “[N]ot all facts indicating parental alienation are sufficient to preclude a parent from having primary residential responsibility.” Rustad v. Rustad, 2014 ND 148, ¶ 14, 849 N.W.2d 607. Here, the district court acknowledged Guillaume may have engaged in some alienating behavior that the court did not find significant, and the court explained its decision was not based on alienation. Sherman also argues the court gave improper weight to Guillaume under several of the best interest factors. Sherman’s allegations essentially ask us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do under the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Lessard v. Johnson, 2019 ND 301, ¶ 12, 936 N.W.2d 528. [¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). [¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.