A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 32-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to general provisions for judicial remedies.
Summary
HB 1409 would add a new section to North Dakota Century Code chapter 32-01 to define “interest” broadly for purposes of judicial remedies. The bill states that interest must be liberally interpreted and may be either legal or equitable. It also defines an “interested party” in a civil or criminal judicial action as a party with a legal or equitable interest in the subject property or rights at issue.
The measure further explains that a party with an equitable interest is one whose benefit, property, or rights may be affected by a court decision. It also provides that a party with a legal interest in property or rights may be represented by a party holding an equitable interest in the subject property or rights. In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at expanding or clarifying who may be recognized as having standing or a sufficient stake in a judicial proceeding.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1409 would have amended North Dakota’s general judicial-remedies provisions by creating a new statutory definition of “interest” and related terms in chapter 32-01. The change would likely affect how courts determine whether a person or entity qualifies as an interested party in civil or criminal actions, potentially broadening participation or representation based on equitable interests. Because the bill was not enacted, no statutory change resulted.
Sentiment
The bill did not advance, failing on House second reading by a wide margin, 18-73. That vote suggests limited support in the chamber and a generally unfavorable reception. No committee transcripts were provided, so the available evidence of sentiment comes primarily from the decisive floor vote and the bill’s failed status.
Contention
The central point of contention appears to have been the bill’s broad and liberal definition of “interest,” especially its inclusion of equitable interests and the ability for a party with a legal interest to be represented by someone with an equitable interest. Supporters likely viewed the bill as clarifying access to courts and recognizing real-world property and rights relationships, while opponents may have been concerned about expanding standing, complicating judicial proceedings, or creating uncertainty in civil and criminal cases. The strong negative vote indicates those concerns outweighed support.