Stokka v. Stokka, No. 20250298 (May 7, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Laura Lynne STOKKA n/k/a Laura Lynne Raile v. Timothy Jakob STOKKA
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
North Dakota (ND)
Court
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided
May 7, 2026
Stokka v. Stokka, --- N.W.3d ---- (2026)2026 ND 94 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1251360Supreme Court of North Dakota.Laura Lynne STOKKA n/k/a LauraLynne Raile, Plaintiff and Appelleev.Timothy Jakob STOKKA, Defendant and AppellantandState of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in InterestNo. 20250298|Filed May 7, 2026Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East CentralJudicial District, the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge.Attorneys and Law FirmsJennifer E. Jensen, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee;submitted on brief.Timothy J. Stokka, Fargo, ND, defendant and appellant;submitted on brief.OpinionPer Curiam.*1 [¶1] Timothy Jakob Stokka appeals from a districtcourt judgment and orders entered against him in divorceand custody proceedings against Laura Lynne Stokka (n/k/aLaura Lynne Raile). On appeal, Stokka argues the judgmententered as a result of the marital termination agreement isprocedurally and substantively unconscionable, and is void orvoidable because it was entered without enforcing a parentingtime orientation requirement. He also argues the court abusedits discretion by denying his motion for contempt, motionfor reconsideration, and motion for sanctions. Stokka arguesthe district court erred by finding he is a vexatious litigantunder N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. Rule 58. Stokka argues thecourt misapplied the law in calculating his child supportpayments and denying retroactive credit of child support.Finally, he argues the court's rulings violate his constitutionalrights of due process and equal protection. Raile arguesStokka's arguments are not adequately briefed. We agree andsummarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).[¶2] “This Court does not address inadequately briefedissues.” Diop v. Altepeter, 2025 ND 196, 3, 27 N.W.3d704. “A party waives an issue by not providing supportingargument and, without supportive reasoning or citations torelevant authorities, an argument is without merit.” State v.Gomez, 2025 ND 60, 18, 18 N.W.3d 829 (cleaned up).[¶3] Under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8), this Court maysummarily affirm a judgment if the appellant's brief doesnot comply with the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P.28(b). “All briefs under [N.D.R.App.P. 28] must be concise,presented with accuracy, logically arranged with properheadings, and free from burdensome, irrelevant or immaterialmatters.” N.D.R.App.P. 28(l). In State v. Noack, 2007 ND 82, 9, 732 N.W.2d 389, this Court explained:Of the requirements imposed byN.D.R.App.P. 28, three are absolutelyimperative for our review. At aminimum, a brief must contain astatement of the issues presentedfor review; a statement of the factsand, where those facts are disputed,references to the evidentiary recordsupporting the appellant's statementof the facts; and the appellant's legalargument, including the authorities onwhich the appellant relies. Withoutthese essential elements included inthe appellant's brief, we decline toaddress the alleged errors because thecase is not properly before us.[¶4] Stokka's brief lacks reference to the evidentiary recordsupporting his statement of the facts and the legal authoritieson which he relies. The few legal authorities cited by Stokkaare either irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent. See City ofDickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, ¶¶ 16, 19, 31 N.W.3d672 (explaining fake or nonexistent legal citations typicallyare the result of AI hallucinations and awarding $500 as asanction for misconduct). Stokka's brief does not comply withthe minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28.[¶5] We award Raile double costs and attorney's fees in theamount of $1,000. See Kantola v. Kantola, 2026 ND 57, 3, 32 N.W.3d 324 (when documentation for costs and feesdoes not accompany filing we may award a fixed amount of
Stokka v. Stokka, --- N.W.3d ---- (2026)2026 ND 94 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2attorney's fees at our discretion). We summarily affirm thejudgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).[¶6] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J.Jerod E. TufteJon J. JensenDouglas A. BahrMark A. FrieseAll Citations--- N.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 1251360, 2026 ND 94End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access