IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 58

Rosel Hoever f/k/a Rosel Hoever-Wilder, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Thomas Edward Wilder, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230295

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial 

District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Christene A. Reierson, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Greg W. Hennessy, Williston, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 4, 2024 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Hoever v. Wilder

No. 20230295

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Thomas Wilder appeals from an order partially granting Rosel Hoever’s 

motion for an order to show cause and to enforce the divorce judgment. Wilder 

argues the district court erred by misconstruing Hoever’s releases of lis 

pendens and real property from lien of order and denied his attorney equal 

protection under the federal and state constitutions. We affirm, concluding 

Wilder has failed to adequately brief these issues with adequate citation to the 

record and legal authority.

I

[¶2] In 2015, Wilder and Hoever divorced and judgment was entered, 

distributing the marital estate. After the district court entered multiple orders 

finding Wilder in contempt for violating the judgment, Hoever once again 

moved for an order to show cause and to enforce the judgment. Hoever 

requested all of the sale proceeds of certain real property identified in the 

divorce judgment be released to her as provided in the judgment and sanctions 

against Wilder, Wilder’s attorney Greg Hennessy, and the attorney in the 

partition action facilitating the real property sale. The sale proceeds were 

originally received by Wilder, who in turn paid $57,921.45 to Hoever, 

$39,921.45 to Attorney Hennessy, and $18,000 to the partition action attorney. 

[¶3] After a hearing, the district court ordered Attorney Hennessy to deposit 

a check for the amount he received, $39,921.45, with the court, denied Hoever’s 

request for payment as to the partition action attorney, and allowed for further 

briefing and a hearing if requested. After further briefing and no request for a 

hearing, the court partially granted Hoever’s motion, releasing the $39,921.45 

to Hoever. The court found that at no time was Wilder’s obligation to pay 

Hoever $100,000 from the sale proceeds modified and that the $39,921.45 

payment to Attorney Hennessy from the sale proceeds was contrary to the 

judgment. The court concluded, “To the extent [Hoever] executed a Release of 

Lis Pendens, this Court agrees with [Hoever] that such release was to 
2

effectuate the sale of the subject property and not to modify the Judgment.”

The court concluded the partition action attorney did not have to return the 

$18,000 paid to him because he never represented Wilder in the divorce action 

and the judgment was not docketed against Wilder as a searchable money 

judgment so as to encumber the property. The court sanctioned Wilder for the 

wrongful diversion of the $39,921.45, ordering him to pay Hoever $15,000, 

which was suspended and held in abeyance. 

II

[¶4] Wilder argues the district court misconstrued Hoever’s releases of lis 

pendens and real property from lien of order, and denied Attorney Hennessy 

equal protection under the federal and state constitutions by failing to treat 

him as equally as the partition action attorney.

[¶5] Under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b)(7), the appellant’s argument must contain his 

“contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and 

parts of the record on which [he] relies” and “citation to the record showing 

that the issue was preserved for review; or a statement of grounds for seeking 

review of an issue not preserved.” “[A] party waives an issue by not providing 

supporting argument and, without supportive reasoning or citations to 

relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.” Riemers v. City of Grand 

Forks, 2006 ND 224, ¶ 9, 723 N.W.2d 518. We “will not consider an argument 

that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed,” or “engage in 

unassisted searches of the record for evidence to support a litigant’s position.” 

State v. Noack, 2007 ND 82, ¶ 8, 732 N.W.2d 389.

[¶6] Other than citing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, §§ 1 and 23, Wilder’s appellant brief does 

not cite any legal authority. Wilder’s reply brief cites one statute, N.D.C.C. 

§ 35-20-08(1), which is an attorney’s lien statute, and one case, Hospital 

Services, Inc. v. Knutson, 246 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1976), with very little 

discussion as to their relevance to his argument. Therefore, we conclude 

Wilder’s arguments are inadequately supported with citation to relevant legal 

authorities.
3

[¶7] With respect to the equal protection argument, Wilder’s only citation to 

the record is to the order being appealed. This is particularly concerning where 

Hoever argues in her appellee brief that Wilder failed to raise the equal 

protection argument in the district court. See Working Cap. No. 1, LLC v. 

Quality Auto Body, Inc., 2012 ND 115, ¶ 13, 817 N.W.2d 346 (concluding that 

we will not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal). 

Addressing this assertion in his reply brief, Wilder states, without citation to 

the record, the “court record shows at all points before, during and after the 

1/10/23 [motion for order to show cause] hearing [he] argued that his divorce 

lawyer and his partition action lawyer be treated equally by being paid from 

sale proceeds.” Wilder has not cited to the record showing the issue was 

preserved for review and has not met the minimum requirements of 

N.D.R.App.P. 28(b)(7). See also Riemers, 2006 ND 224, ¶ 9 (noting that a party 

asserting a constitutional claim “must make a strong case supported by both 

fact and law or ‘forgo the claim’”). 

[¶8] Because Wilder has failed to adequately support his arguments with 

legal authorities and adequately support his equal protection argument with 

citation to the record, his arguments are without merit.

III

[¶9] The order partially granting Hoever’s motion for an order to show cause 

and to enforce the divorce judgment is affirmed.

[¶10] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr