Santora v. Santora

2024 ND 193
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 2024
DocketNo. 20240014
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 ND 193 (Santora v. Santora) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Santora v. Santora, 2024 ND 193 (N.D. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 193

Inara Santora, n/k/a Inara Xie, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Francisco Santora, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20240014

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Inara Santora, n/k/a Inara Xie, self-represented, Honolulu, HI, plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Francisco Santora, self-represented, Davao, Philippines, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. Santora v. Santora No. 20240014

[¶1] Francisco Santora appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the amended judgment. He argues the district court lacked jurisdiction and erred in denying his motion to vacate judgment. Francisco Santora did not contest personal jurisdiction in his answer or a timely filed motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), and voluntarily appeared in this action. The issue is therefore waived. Intercept Corp. v. Calima Fin., LLC, 2007 ND 180, ¶ 10, 741 N.W.2d 209 (“A lack- of-personal-jurisdiction defense is waived if it is neither made by motion nor included in a responsive pleading.”). Further, the court found the residency requirements of N.D.C.C. § 14-05-17 were met, and therefore the court had subject matter jurisdiction. The court’s finding that Plaintiff satisfied the six- month residency requirement is not clearly erroneous. See McComb v. Aboelessad, 535 N.W.2d 744, 748 (N.D. 1995) (“Legal residence is a question of fact that we review under the clearly erroneous standard.”). We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Francisco Santora’s motion to vacate judgment. To the extent Francisco Santora raised additional issues on appeal, these issues were inadequately briefed under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b)(7). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), (7), and (8).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Intercept Corp. v. Calima Financial, LLC
2007 ND 180 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2007)
McComb v. Aboelessad
535 N.W.2d 744 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 ND 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santora-v-santora-nd-2024.