Opinion ID: 1290282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hubers' Reliance on the County's Request for Oral Argument

Text: Hubers claim they were entitled to rely on the County's request for oral argument to guarantee them an opportunity to be heard on their own and the County's motions. We disagree. Rule 3.2 of the North Dakota Rules of Court guarantees oral argument for parties who have timely served and filed their brief and request oral argument. Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445, 446 (N.D.1989). The rule, however, requires that [t]he party requesting oral argument must secure a time for the argument and serve notice upon all other parties. NDROC 3.2. Failure to secure a time for oral argument renders the request incomplete. The record in the instant case provides nothing to indicate that the County ever completed their initial request. If a request for oral argument is incomplete, reliance upon that initial request by another party is misplaced, at best. The Hubers, in their initial notice of motion, explicitly waived oral argument. Parties seeking oral argument under Rule 3.2 should make their own request, if they wish to be heard. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and LEVINE, MESCHKE and SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.