[1,2] The denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 67 (1991) (citing Commonwealth v. Bordallo, 1 N. Mar. I. 208, 219-20 (1990), appeal after remand, 2 N. Mar. I. 226, 230 (1991)); In re Adoption of Olopai, 2 N. Mar. I. 91, 95-96 (1991). The disposition of a motion to withdraw as counsel is also reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See Santos v. Nansay Micronesia, Inc., 4 N. Mar. I. 155, 160, 167 (1994) (requiring substantial evidence to support challenge to verdict as against weight of evidence); Commonwealth v. Hanada, 2 N. Mar. I. 343, 350 (1991) (involving juror misconduct); Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 67 (1991) (involving motion for continuance). A trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principals of law and practice to the substantial detriment of a party or litigant.
We review the admissibility of hearsay statements for abuse of discretion. See Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 67 (1991). II.
This policy, as maintained by the CNMI, incorporates a recognition of the scarcity of land and its importance in local traditions and customs. See, e.g., ANALYSIS at 164-65 (concerning Article XII, ยง 1) (quoted in Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 70 (1991)); see also Commonwealth v. Bordallo, 1 N. Mar. I. 208, 218-19 (1990) (citing Covenant ยง 805 and noting importance of land ownership "in relation to the culture and traditions of' NMDs), opinion on remand, 2 N. Mar. I. 226 (1991). The Government of the Northern Mariana Islands, in view of the importance of the ownership of land for the culture and traditions of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, and in order to protect them against exploitation and to promote their economic advancement and self-sufficiency:
Further, where there is no direct evidence that a partida occurred, indirect evidence may reveal that one was intended. Cf. Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 70-72 (1991).The probate code is applicable to the distribution of property in Felipe's estate because he died after the effective date of the code.
Such ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61 (N.M.I. 1991). III. ANALYSIS
Oral conveyances of real property were permissible in the CNMI until October 28, 1983. Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 70-71 (1991). The lot is where Ana resided in the family house.
Any prejudice would have resulted from Sablan's lack of diligence in seeking counsel.Hwang Jae, supra at 148, citing Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 77 (1991). Commonwealth v. Bordallo, 1 N. Mar. I. 208, 219 (1990).
To establish that Antonio I gave Felix the Chalan Nuevo property as a gift, the Court must find that: (1) Antonio I intended to orally convey the land; (2) Antonio I delivered the land to Felix; and (3) Felix accepted the land. Decision and Order at 12, relying upon Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61, 73 (1991) and Cabrera v. Cabrera, supra, 3 N. Mar. I. at 5. The Administratrix's contention that the gift requires an additional element, consideration, is without merit.
We have considered the second issue and are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Nabors did not exercise due diligence in preparing for trial and retaining new counsel. See Guerrero v. Guerrero, 2 N. Mar. I. 61 (1991). Nabors contends that under Com. R. Civ. P. 38(d), he was entitled to rely on Regina's demand for a jury trial, was not required to make an independent demand of his own, and Regina could not withdraw her demand without his consent.