SANTORA v. State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest (2024)

[¶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).

Per Curiam.

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