DRAKE v. DRAKE (2026)

[¶1] Robert Drake appeals from a divorce judgment arguing the district court violated his due process rights by failing to grant him a trial continuance. He also raises a number of other issues, including an assertion that the court erred when it adopted the parties’ stipulated marital property distribution agreement. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it addressed Drake's request for a continuance, and the remaining issues are either inadequately briefed or without merit. See Otten v. Otten, 2023 ND 134, ¶ 3, 993 N.W.2d 523 (stating a decision on a motion to continue trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); see also N.D.R.App.P. 28(b) (providing minimum briefing requirements, which include a statement of facts, the standard of review, and citations to supporting authority). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (8).

Per Curiam.

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