Kaspari v. Kaspari, 997 N.W.2d 621

Thomas and Jean Kaspari married in 1983; Jean filed for divorce in 2019 and the litigation produced multiple appeals and a remand to the district court.
Following the remand, the district court entered a second amended judgment; Jean served Thomas with notice of entry of that judgment on February 22, 2023.
Thomas filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on April 19, 2023 (56 days after notice of entry of judgment and more than 28 days later).
The district court denied Thomas’s Rule 60(b) motion and served notice of entry of that order on June 12, 2023.
On June 12, 2023, Thomas filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal both the second amended judgment and the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion.
The Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal of the second amended judgment (untimely), but concluded the appeal of the Rule 60(b) denial was timely; however the Rule 60(b) denial was not briefed on appeal and therefore was not considered on the merits. The court also cautioned counsel for offensive language in a brief but imposed no sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / jurisdiction of appeal from the second amended judgment	Jean: appeal is untimely because notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after service of notice of entry and the Rule 60 motion did not toll the 60-day period	Thomas: his Rule 60(b) motion tolled the time to appeal (so his appeal of the judgment should be timely)	Appeal of second amended judgment was untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the appeal of the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion should be reached on the merits	Jean: implicitly that the denial should be affirmed / the appeal fails procedurally or on the merits	Thomas: appealed the denial but failed to present argument in his brief on why the court abused its discretion	Notice of appeal of the order was timely, but Thomas abandoned the issue by failing to brief it; the order denying Rule 60(b) relief is affirmed
Professionalism of appellate filings and potential sanctions for abusive language	Jean (via counsel): amended brief to remove offensive language and explained inadvertent inclusion	Thomas: not directly involved in this point	No sanctions imposed but the court warned counsel about using uncivil or abusive language and cautioned that future filings may prompt sanctions

Kaspari v. Kaspari, 982 N.W.2d 291 (prior remand directing entry of second amended judgment)
Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 949 N.W.2d 824 (jurisdictional requirement before considering merits of appeal)
Jacobs-Raak v. Raak, 942 N.W.2d 879 (time limit for filing notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson, 855 N.W.2d 608 (Rule 3/4 appellate timing principles)
Werven v. Werven, 877 N.W.2d 9 (Rule 60 motion filed within 28 days tolls time to appeal divorce judgment)
Waslaski v. State, 830 N.W.2d 228 (distinguishes tolling for Rule 60 motions not filed within 28 days of notice)
Trosen v. Trosen, 982 N.W.2d 527 (arguments not adequately briefed will not be considered)
Riskey v. Riskey, 917 N.W.2d 488 (issues not briefed are deemed abandoned and not considered on appeal)