Court Opinion

ID: 9957406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:07:51.869055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:18.885268
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                              APRIL 4, 2024
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  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.
                              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

                                       1
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.

                                       2
[¶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

                                       3