Laducer v. Laducer , 2023 ND 117 ( 2023 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
JUNE 21, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 117Jana Lee Laducer, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Mark Laducer, Defendant and Appellee
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest
No. 20230002
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Bobbi B. Weiler, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Jana L. Birkland, f/k/a Jana Lee Laducer, Marshalltown, IA, self-represented,
plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.
Breanna K. Delorme, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellee; submitted
on brief.
Laducer v. Laducer, et al.
No. 20230002
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Jana Birkland, formerly Jana Laducer, appeals from a district court
order denying her motion for review and amendment of child support entered
after an evidentiary hearing. Birkland argues the district court erred in finding
she did not show a material change in circumstances to justify a modification
in her child support obligation to Mark Laducer. She also argues the district
court failed to remain impartial.
[¶2] Birkland failed to file a transcript of the hearing for our review. Under
N.D.R.App.P. 10(b), the appellant must file with this Court the transcript of
any evidentiary hearing held in the matter. “An appellant assumes the
consequences and the risk for failing to file a proper transcript. This principle
applies equally to self-represented litigants. The failure to provide a transcript
may prevent a party from being successful on appeal.” Schmitt v. Schmitt, 2014
ND 225, ¶ 7, 857 N.W.2d 362 (cleaned up). Based on the record before us,
Birkland has not shown the district court’s findings that there was no material
change of circumstances to justify a modification in the child support obligation
are clearly erroneous. Nor has she shown anywhere in the record that the court
failed to remain impartial.
[¶3] Birkland’s brief on appeal also failed to point to relevant legal authority
explaining how the district court erred and does not contain the minimum
requirements provided in N.D.R.App.P. 28. We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (8).
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1