Dossenko v. Dossenko, 9781
| Decision Date | 17 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 9781,9781 |
| Citation | 294 N.W.2d 909 |
| Parties | Eleanore Helen DOSSENKO, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Barry Grant DOSSENKO, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Anderson, Tossett & Dobrovolny, Minot, for plaintiff and appellee.
Bruce C. Britton, Fargo, for defendant and appellant at trial; Robert Bolinske of Zuger & Bucklin, Bismarck, substitute counsel for purposes of appeal.
This matter comes before us on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 10(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
The plaintiff-appellee, Eleanore Helen Dossenko, and the defendant-appellant, Barry Grant Dossenko, were married in 1967. Irreconcilable differences arose between the parties and a judgment of divorce was entered in Ward County District Court, Northwest Judicial District, on February 7, 1980. On February 26, 1980, a notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the district court. A bond for costs on appeal was filed fifteen days later. See Rule 7, N.D.R.App.P. Thereafter, on May 21, 1980, approximately 75 days after the notice of appeal was filed, Eleanore moved for dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that Barry had failed to order a transcript of the proceedings and had made no effort to pursue the appeal. Counsel for Eleanore did not ask for costs in connection with the motion to dismiss.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for June 19, 1980, and the parties were notified by the clerk of the supreme court that briefs were to be served and filed by June 16th. In the interval between the trial and that date, Barry employed another lawyer. On June 13, 1980, and on June 18, 1980, the clerk of the supreme court was informed by the substitute counsel for Barry that the appeal would not be pursued and that a stipulation of dismissal was forthcoming. As a result, neither party made a personal appearance at the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for June 19, 1980, and no briefs were filed relative thereto. The letter from present counsel for Barry indicates that counsel for Eleanore has refused to sign the voluntary stipulation of dismissal because he seeks to recover costs and attorney's fees in connection with the motion for dismissal.
Rule 10(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part as follows:
"
The transcript must be completed within 50 days after the notice of appeal is filed unless the court reporter or a party applies for and receives an extension. Rule 10(c) and (d), N.D.R.App.P.
In the present case, pursuant to Rule 10(c), N.D.R.App.P., the transcript should have been completed, served, and filed by April 16, 1980, which is 50 days after the notice of appeal was filed (February 26, 1980). No application was made for an extension of time to complete the transcript. Barry failed to comply with Rule 10(b), N.D.R.App.P., in that proof of service of the order for transcript and a copy of the stipulation of excluded portions, if applicable, were never filed with the notice of appeal. In addition, no brief has been served and filed as required by Rule 31, N.D.R.App.P. 1 and no appearance was made at the scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss. Barry has failed to take any steps to pursue the appeal other than to file a notice of appeal and bond for costs. No attempt has been made to show the reason for the delay, to present any justifiable reasons why the motion to dismiss should not be granted, or to show good cause for relief of any kind.
Rule 3(a), N.D.R.App.P., provides that failure of the appellant "to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal " (emphasis added).
We are reluctant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Bank of Burleigh County Trust Co. v. City of Bismarck By and Through Bismarck Bd. of City Com'rs, 10091
...judgment. Although we periodically say that it is important to reach the merits of appeals whenever possible, e.g., Dossenko v. Dossenko, 294 N.W.2d 909 (N.D.1980), and Ingalls v. Bakken, 167 N.W.2d 516, 519 (N.D.1969), we must first address the Bank's two motions: (1) that the City be requ......
-
City of Fargo v. Malme
...must be specifically requested in the district court. See State v. Larsen, 515 N.W.2d 178, 182 (N.D.1994); Dossenko v. Dossenko, 294 N.W.2d 909, 911 (N.D.1980); N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(1) ("A party awarded costs and disbursements shall submit to the clerk a detailed, verified statement [¶ 12] We......
-
Houser v. Gilbert
...when the record and briefs on the merits have been filed. See Matter of Estate of Raketti, 340 N.W.2d 894 (N.D.1983); Dossenko v. Dossenko, 294 N.W.2d 909 (N.D.1980); Liebelt v. Saby, 279 N.W.2d 881 (N.D.1979); Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Co., 248 N.W.2d 851 (N.D.1976). We see no precedential ......
-
Kjorvestad's Estates, Matter of, 9243-B
...been filed with the court so that the merits can be evaluated? (4) Is the underlying appeal meritorious? See, e. g., Dossenko v. Dossenko, 294 N.W.2d 909 (N.D.1980); State v. Morrissey, 295 N.W.2d 305 (N.D.1980); Saba v. City of Bismarck, 275 N.W.2d 302 (N.D.1979); State v. Packineau, 270 N......