AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the appeal of a final decree of dissolution of marriage by the Petitioner-Appellant, Mickey Birdsall (Husband), against the Respondent-Appellee, Lorri C. Johnson Morales, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wynona Beth Johnson Birdsall, Deceased. The Husband sought to amend his docketing statement to add an issue concerning medical, doctor, and hospital reports but did not provide sufficient details or viability for the issue. Additionally, the Husband contested the stipulated order to substitute party, which was signed on his behalf by his attorney, and argued that the divorce action should have been dismissed following his wife's death.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Husband): Sought to amend the docketing statement to include issues concerning medical, doctor, and hospital reports but failed to elaborate sufficiently on the matter. Contended that he did not approve the stipulated order to substitute party, which was signed by his attorney, and argued that the divorce action should have been dismissed following his wife's death (paras 2-5).
• Respondent-Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Respondent-Appellee.

Legal Issues

• Whether the motion to amend the docketing statement to add an issue concerning medical, doctor, and hospital reports should be granted.
• Whether documents not presented to the district court can be considered on appeal.
• Whether the stipulated order to substitute party was valid despite the Husband's claim of non-approval.
• Whether the divorce action should have been dismissed following the wife's death.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied due to lack of detailed explanation and viability of the issue.
• Documents not presented to the district court were not considered on appeal.
• The stipulated order to substitute party was found to be valid as it was signed on the Husband's behalf by his attorney.
• The divorce action's continuation following the wife's death was affirmed based on statutory provisions that marital property rights and debts proceedings conclude as if both parties had survived.

Reasons

• The panel of judges, consisting of Jennifer L. Attrep, Megan P. Duffy, and Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously affirmed the district court's final decree of dissolution of marriage. The court found the Husband's motion to amend the docketing statement lacked sufficient detail and viability (para 2). It also ruled that matters outside the record, including documents not presented to the district court, present no issue for review (para 3). The court held that the stipulated order to substitute party was validly signed by the Husband's attorney, acting as his agent, and that dissatisfaction with the attorney's actions was not addressed by the district court and thus inappropriate for review (para 4). Finally, the court rejected the Husband's argument for dismissal of the divorce action following his wife's death, citing statutory provisions that allow for the continuation of proceedings for the determination, division, and distribution of marital property rights and debts as if both parties had survived (para 5).