Court Opinion

ID: 9592779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:16:56.778066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:24.511652
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the dismissal. First, the “issue” of the deprivation of post-redemption privilege of repurchase was not raised in the pleadings or in briefs or argument to the trial court. Indeed, it was not even hinted at below. Further, it was not raised on appeal in briefs. An issue not raised in briefs and not identified or researched is not one we should consider. Kern v. Art Schimkat Construction Co., 125 N.W.2d 149 (N.D.1963). But even if the majority is of a different view and believes that an issue raised in oral argument should nonetheless be resolved by this court, then my rejoinder is that the so-called issue was not raised in oral argument. What was raised was appellant’s reference to NDCC § 15-07-10 and his uncertainty as to whether that section even applied in this case. An appellant seeking to reverse a dismissal based upon a particular legal theory better be prepared to argue that such legal principle is fully applicable to the facts at hand.
By rationalizing its result on the ground that we prefer to decide matters on the merits, the majority undercuts that venerable principle by applying it in a case where *504there is absolutely no mooring to support it.
I respectfully dissent.