Boehm v. BergerCivil No. 970124

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Dale Berger appealed an amended judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial. He challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting an award of $13,887.94 in damages for the tortious removal of Ernest Boehm's fence between their adjacent farms. We affirm under NDRAppP 35.1 (a)(1), (2), and (4). See, e.g., Bruner v. Hager, 547 N.W.2d 551, 553 n.2 (N.D. 1996). We also direct that costs on appeal be doubled for the appellant's failure to furnish the statement of grounds for the trial court's denial of the motion for a new trial, either in the record or in the appendix. See NDRCivP 59(f), NDRAppP 30(a)(5), and NDRAppP 38.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Herbert L. Meschke
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom