Corey v. Kenneh

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 

Amanda Marie Corey,                                  Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
Patricia Suba Kenneh,                             Respondent and Appellant



                                No. 20250239

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Theodore Sandberg, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Amanda M. Corey, self-represented, Grand Forks, ND, petitioner and appellee;
submitted on brief.

Patricia S. Kenneh, self-represented, Grand Forks, ND, respondent and
appellant; submitted on brief.
                                 Corey v. Kenneh
                                  No. 20250239

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Patricia Kenneh appeals from a district court order granting Amanda
Corey’s petition, on behalf of her minor child, K.B.L.C., for a disorderly conduct
restraining order (DCRO) against Kenneh. Kenneh argues generally there was
insufficient evidence to support the issuance of the DCRO, there was no physical
evidence to support the petition, and the court should have found her more
credible. Corey argues the court did not err as reasonable grounds existed
showing Kenneh made repeated threats with the intent to intimidate K.B.L.C.
and both parties were given the opportunity to testify and present evidence.
Corey further argues this appeal is moot as the DCRO will expire before this
Court issues its decision. We affirm.

                                          I

[¶2] We consider the threshold issue of mootness before reaching the merits of
an appeal. In re M.R., 

, 

. “[A]n appeal will be
dismissed if the issues become moot . . . leaving no actual controversy to be
determined.” 

 “An appeal is not moot if the district court’s decision continues
to have collateral consequences for the appealing party.” 

 (cleaned up). This
Court declines to review an issue if the record does not allow for meaningful and
intelligent review of the district court’s alleged error. Chase v. State, 

, 

.

[¶3] The case citations Corey relies on in her brief to support her mootness
argument lead to either different, irrelevant cases from those cited or to no case
at all. Because Corey provides only non-existent case law and we are unable to
discern on this record whether collateral consequences exist, we decline to
dismiss this appeal as moot.

                                         II

[¶4] On the merits of Kenneh’s arguments, we preface our discussion of
sufficiency of the evidence by noting the lack of a transcript on appeal. See


                                          1
N.D.R.App.P. 10(b)(1) (requiring appellant to order transcript of evidentiary
hearings). It is the appellant’s responsibility to obtain a transcript and they must
bear any consequences for failing to provide a transcript on appeal. Farm Credit
Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 

 (N.D. 1994). The lack of a transcript
on appeal may preclude meaningful review. Buchholz v. Mayo, 

,

.

[¶5] Here, Kenneh did not provide any citations to the record, and the lack of
a transcript precludes meaningful review. See Hoever v. Wilder, 

,

 (noting we will not engage in unassisted searches of the record for
evidence to support a litigant’s position).

                                        III

[¶6] We affirm.

[¶7] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                         2