WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1405

Bedford County - Subject to local approval, abolishes the Bedford County road board. - Repeals Chapter 30 of the Private Acts of 1975 and Chapter 39 of the Private Acts of 1989.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Pat Marsh

The bill would require summons to include a reference to the state self‑help program and set a uniform deadline (30 or 60 days) for defendants to answer after service.

Pr. Ch. 3
#bedfordcounty
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1405

HB 1405 — North Dakota (Introduced)

Title: A bill to create and enact a new section to chapter 28‑01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to service of summons and time limitations for serving an answer to a claim

Main purpose / intent

HB 1405 would add a new provision to chapter 28‑01 N.D.C.C. to (1) require that civil summonses served on individuals in North Dakota include a reference to a legal self‑help program administered by the North Dakota Supreme Court, and (2) set a uniform statutory deadline for a defendant to serve an answer, cross‑claim answer, or reply to a counterclaim after service.

The stated policy goals are (a) to improve access to court self‑help resources for persons served with civil process, and (b) to clarify/standardize the time limit for filing responsive pleadings.

Key provisions

  • Creates a new section in chapter 28‑01 N.D.C.C. titled “Service of summons — Answer — Time limitation.”
  • Summons content requirement: A summons in a civil action served on an individual within the state must include a reference to the legal self‑help program administered by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
  • Answer deadline (explicit, overriding language): “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a defendant shall serve an answer to the complaint or to a cross‑claim, or a reply to a counterclaim, within days after service upon the pleading in which the claim is asserted.”
    • Note on versions/edits: The bill text circulated in different draft forms setting the deadline at either 60 days (initial introduced version) or 30 days (committee/engrossed versions). Committee amendments indicate a move from the original 60‑day language toward a 30‑day deadline; the bill as amended in first engrossment used 30 days. The provision is written as “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” intending to preempt conflicting timing rules.

Who would be affected

  • Defendants/respondents in civil actions served within North Dakota (individuals and their counsel) — by receiving the self‑help reference and by the established deadline for answers.
  • Plaintiffs and counsel, because earlier or different timing for default practice and case scheduling could result.
  • Clerks and court administrators — summons forms/processes would need to include the self‑help reference; local practice and notice processes may require adjustments.
  • The North Dakota Supreme Court’s self‑help program — likely increased visibility and referrals from mailed/served summonses.
  • Pro se litigants and low‑income persons — improved notice of available self‑help resources.

Procedural history / status (selected)

  • Introduced: November 19, 2024.
  • First reading / house referral: March 11, 2025 (and related committee activity thereafter).
  • Judiciary Committee: proposed amendments and first engrossment materials prepared (committee adopted amendments Jan. 29, 2025 as recorded in proposed amendment packets).
  • Second reading (floor): Bill was considered on second reading and failed to pass — yeas 20, nays 71 (date recorded in the file: 2025‑02‑04).
  • Current status: Failed to pass on second reading (not enacted).

Practical effects and considerations

  • Access to information: mandating a summons reference to a court‑administered self‑help program could improve access to court forms and guidance for unrepresented litigants.
  • Timing impact: a uniform 30‑ or 60‑day answer deadline (depending on the final text) could conflict with current statutory or rule‑based response times; the bill’s “notwithstanding” clause would prioritize the bill’s deadline over other provisions. Shortening or fixing the period may increase default judgments if defendants miss the new deadline or create administrative burden for courts and litigants to adapt calendars.
  • Implementation: court clerks and the Supreme Court would need to update summons templates and public information; attorneys would need to adjust calendar practices.

Note: Multiple draft versions appeared in the legislative packet (including 60‑ and 30‑day variants). Because the bill failed on the second reading, it did not become law; interested readers should consult the legislative record and the final enrolled act (if any later action occurred) for the definitive text.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.