Mathisen v. Becker-Johner

2023 ND 241, 999 N.W.2d 202

Opinion

FILED

IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

DECEMBER 15, 2023

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 241

Kelly Mathisen and Char Mathisen, Plaintiffs and Appellees v.

Marvin Becker-Johner, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230263

Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel S. El-Dweek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Thomas E. Kalil, Williston, ND, for plaintiffs and appellees.

Marvin Becker-Johner, self-represented, Watford City, ND, defendant and appellant.

Mathisen v. Becker-Johner No. 20230263

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Marvin Becker-Johner appeals from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Mathisens after he failed to respond to the motion. Becker-Johner contends the court erred because he had previously responded to similar motions and the judgment fails to adequately define the easement’s boundaries. Becker-Johner’s appellate brief does not include a legal argument, does not include any supporting authorities for his assertions, fails to provide any reference to the evidentiary record, and does not contain the minimum requirements provided in N.D.R.App.P. 28. See State v. Noack, 2007 ND 82, ¶ 9, 732 N.W.2d 389 (“[A] brief must contain a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the facts and, where those facts are disputed, references to the evidentiary record supporting the appellant’s statement of the facts; and the appellant’s legal argument, including the authorities on which the appellant relies.”). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr