Wayne A. Rosendahl appealed, pro se, from a district court judgment and decree of divorce. On appeal, Wayne contends that a number of the findings of fact made by the trial court were clearly erroneous resulting in an inequitable distribution of the property between the parties, an excessive child support award, inadequate visitation privileges, and finally an improper award of income tax exemptions to Roberta Rosendahl.
On October 23, 1989, an action for divorce was commenced in Bottineau County by Roberta. A trial in this divorce case was held on August 2, 1990. At the end of the trial, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment which contained a number of findings of fact regarding the division of Wayne and Roberta’s property, the child support award, the visitation schedule and the award of the income tax exemptions.
After a judgment and decree of divorce were entered, Wayne filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. Wayne, however, failed to file a transcript of the district court proceedings for this appeal.
The rules of procedure are not to be applied differently merely because the party is acting pro se.
Davis v. Davis,
By failing to submit a complete transcript of the district court proceedings, Wayne has not met his burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
The judgment is affirmed.
