Neva v. FennellNo. 20080189

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Beth Neva appeals from a trial court order denying her motion for a new trial.

[¶2] Neva filed a complaint against Stephanie Fennell for damages associated with a January 23, 2001 automobile collision. A jury trial was held May 8-10, 2007. The jury returned a special verdict, determined both Fennell and Neva were at fault for the January 23, 2001 accident, and found both proximately caused Neva's damages. The trial court entered a total net judgment in favor of Neva and against Fennell in the amount of $960.18. On March 3, 2008, Neva filed a motion for a new trial, which Fennell opposed. The trial court entered an order on May 29, 2008, denying Neva's motion.

[¶3] Neva appeals the trial court order denying her motion for a new trial. On appeal, Neva sets forth fourteen "Specifications of Error and Issues" for this Court to address. In denying Neva's motion for a new trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion; therefore, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶4] Neva included documents in her appendix that are not in the record. Rule 30(a)(1), N.D.R.App.P., provides in part: "Only items in the record may be included in the appendix." This Court may take appropriate action against a party failing to perform an act required by rule. N.D.R.App.P. 13. Since Neva failed to comply with N.D.R.App.P. 30(a)(1), we award double costs to the appellee. Estate of Wieland, 1998 ND 130, ¶ 22 n.3, 581 N.W.2d 140 (citation omitted).

[¶5] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom