Santora v. Santora , 2024 ND 193 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                      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
    Per Curiam.
    [¶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
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: No. 20240014

Citation Numbers: 2024 ND 193

Filed Date: 10/24/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/24/2024