AN ACT to amend and reenact section 14-09.1-07 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to mediation agreements.
Summary
HB 1048 amends North Dakota Century Code section 14-09.1-07 governing mediation agreements. The bill requires a mediator to prepare a written summary of any agreement reached by the parties and to inform the parties that they have the right to review the agreement with counsel before signing. It also clarifies that the summary may not be shown to the court unless it has been signed by the parties, after which the mediator presents the agreement to the court.
The bill preserves the existing rule that a mediated agreement is not binding until approved by court order. It also continues to require the mediator to advise the court whether an agreement was reached, while tightening the process for documenting and submitting the agreement itself. The measure was introduced at the request of the Supreme Court, suggesting it is intended to refine court-connected mediation procedure rather than change substantive family-law rights.
Impact
HB 1048 makes a targeted procedural change to mediation practice in North Dakota, specifically in cases governed by section 14-09.1-07. It affects mediators, parties to mediation, and the courts by formalizing the written summary process, reinforcing the opportunity for legal review before signature, and limiting when an unsigned summary may be presented to the court. The bill does not alter the requirement of judicial approval for enforceability, but it does clarify the steps needed before a mediated agreement becomes part of the court record and can be acted upon.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received strong bipartisan support. It passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 44-1, indicating near-unanimous agreement that the change was a sensible procedural update. The fact that it was requested by the Supreme Court also suggests institutional support from the judiciary and a technical, administrative purpose rather than a politically divisive one.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts are provided. Any potential concern would likely center on the mediation process itself: ensuring parties have meaningful access to counsel before signing, and clarifying when a mediation summary may be shown to the court. The lone Senate dissent suggests at most a minor objection or reservation, but the record does not identify the reason or any organized opposition.