Parizek requested judicial review of the lien on October 19, 2011, arguing that the lien was improper because the DOC was not a financial institution and was therefore not subject to an account lien. The state responded that the lien was placed on personal property, not an account. The district court upheld the State’s argument and affirmed the administrative action. Parizek moved to dismiss on the allegation that his spending account was not personal property. District court denied his motion.
Parizek appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the DOC and the State violated state law, citing same, by entering into an agreement to enforce the administrative action against him. Parizek also argued that he was entitled to a hearing on the motion, notwithstanding the fact that he failed to request the hearing.
The Supreme Court held that issues such as collusion between the DOC and the State which were not raised before the lower court were not eligible for consideration at the appellate level. The court further held that the law does not require a hearing to be held in every instance in which a party seeks review of an administrative action to enforce a child support order.
Lacking a request for hearing, by law the issue is decided on the briefs. Parizek failed to cite legal authority supporting his arguments, precluding them from consideration, rendering his cause ineffectual and resulting in the affirmation of the lower court’s finding. See: State v. Parizek, 816 N.W.2d 799, 2012 ND 103 (N.D. 2012).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State v. Parizek
|816 N.W.2d 799, 2012 ND 103 (N.D. 2012)
|State Supreme Court