[¶ 12] "Whether particular conduct is an `appearance' for purposes of NDRCivP 55 is a question of law." Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D. 1992). A party must factually demonstrate an appearance in order to obtain relief from judgment.

[¶ 8] Whether an appearance has been made for purposes of Rule 55(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law. Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D. 1992). Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal. US Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Arnold, 2001 ND 130, ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 150. "If the district court's interpretation of disputed facts is not clearly erroneous, we fully review whether the facts support the ultimate legal conclusion of an appearance." US Bank, at ¶ 12.

However, when a defendant has not appeared, he is not entitled to be notified of the motion for default judgment. AE2S Constr., LLC v. Hellervik Oilfield Techs. LLC, 2021 ND 35, ¶ 18, 955 N.W.2d 82; Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 285 (N.D. 1992).

Here, the district court held DCI failed to meet the burden entitling it to Rule 60 relief because it did not identify the specific grounds by which the court should grant relief. Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D. 1992) ("A mere recitation of the grounds set forth to Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., without specific details underlying such assertions, is not sufficient to afford relief." (quoting Fleck v. Fleck, 337 N.W.2d 786, 790 (N.D. 1983)).

" State v. $33,000.00 U.S. Currency , 2008 ND 96, ¶ 9, 748 N.W.2d 420. Whether an appearance has been made for purposes of N.D.R.Civ.P. 55 is a question of law. Hatch v. Hatch , 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D. 1992). "A party must factually demonstrate an appearance in order to obtain relief from judgment." US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Arnold , 2001 ND 130, ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 150.

Shull v. Walcker , 2009 ND 142, ¶ 14, 770 N.W.2d 274. "An appearance, like any other reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect for relief from a judgment, must be factually demonstrated." Hatch v. Hatch , 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D. 1992). "Even though we broadly interpret whether a person has appeared, relief is denied when a party is unable to factually demonstrate an appearance." US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Arnold , 2001 ND 130, ¶ 14, 631 N.W.2d 150.

‘A mere recitation of the grounds set forth to Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., without specific details underlying such assertions, is not sufficient to afford relief.’ " Hatch v. Hatch , 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D.1992) (quoting Fleck v. Fleck , 337 N.W.2d 786, 790 (N.D.1983) ). "We will not overturn a trial court's decision on a motion for relief from judgment absent an abuse of discretion." North Shore, Inc. v. Wakefield , 542 N.W.2d 725, 727 (N.D.1996). "

This Court has explained the standard of review for appearances: Whether an appearance has been made for purposes of Rule 55(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law. Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 286 (N.D.1992). Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal.

The concept of "appearance" is broadly defined, and it includes an assortment of acts by a defendant that respond to the complaint sufficiently to give the plaintiff notice of the defendant's intention to contest the claim. Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 285 (N.D. 1992). A lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense is waived if it is neither made by motion nor included in a responsive pleading.

This Court has broadly defined an appearance to include any response sufficient to give the other parties or their attorneys notice of an intent to contest a claim. Throndset v. Hawkenson, 532 N.W.2d 394, 397 (N.D. 1995); Hatch v. Hatch, 484 N.W.2d 283, 285 (N.D. 1992); Wallwork Lease Rental Co., Inc. v. Schermerhorn, 398 N.W.2d 127, 129-30 (N.D. 1986); Federal Land Bank v. Lillehaugen, 370 N.W.2d 517, 519 (N.D. 1985). The record establishes that Z.C. had appeared in the termination proceeding and counsel had been appointed to represent her. Z.C.'s pro se answer to the petition indicates an intent to contest the State's claims.