PER CURIAM: P1 Appellee Guadalupe P. Manglona ("Petitioner") petitions this Court for rehearing, claiming that our Opinion, Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17, 7 N. Mar. I. 77, was based on our misunderstanding of the trial court's findings. We have reviewed the trial court's Partial Judgment and Order for Status Conference and we find no law or fact that we overlooked or misapprehended.

Mr. Emran argues that because Ms. Olaitiman never pled personal indignities under 8 CMC § 1331(b) as a ground for divorce, the court erred to the extent that it granted the divorce on this ground. This Court has never examined a trial court's authority to grant a divorce on grounds not raised in pleadings, but we discussed pleading rules in the context of civil litigation in Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17, 7 N. Mar. I. 77. In Manglona, the lower court permitted a party that lost at trial to amend its pleadings to include the unpled claim of unjust enrichment.

While this court does not accept unpublished citations as precedent from practitioners under Com.R.App.Pro., Rule 51, we may cite unpublished decisions to support our own developing precedent in the CNMI. The case of Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17, 7 N. Mar. I. 77 is distinguishable because in that case the Superior Court allowed amendment of a complaint after a trial. Here, there was no amendment; rather, the petition though inartfully plead, did include a cause of action for an accounting for profits.

In the instant case, however, Demapan is attempting to have this court consider a separate local statute not plead initially. Next, Demapan cites Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17, 7 N. Mar. I. 77. In Manglona, the issue was whether the trial court erred in granting leave to amend the complaint to allege unjust enrichment in a second trial.