Cited by

¶ 29 (App. 2000); ¶ 23 (App. 2012).

n.5 (App. 2000); see also ARCAP 13(c) (reply brief “must be strictly confined to rebuttal of points made in the appellee’s answering brief”).

§ 25-202(C); ¶ 8 (App. 2000).

in passing” with “no relevant supporting authority” was waived as insufficiently developed (citations omitted)); ¶ 25 n. 5 (App. 2000) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived.” (citation omitted)).

Division of the Community Business ¶26 “We review the [superior] court’s division of property for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 15 (App. 2000).

¶26 Mother asserts “that equity required the trial court here to either order Father to pay Mother one-half the home’s rental value; or order to pay all home expenses during his exclusive use; or to otherwise more equitably balance the assets and debts.” ¶27 In the husband paid the mortgage on the marital residence, which was his separate property, while the wife lived there alone, rent-free.

See ARCAP 13(a)(7) (stating that an appellant’s opening brief must present an argument for each issue presented for review, “with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies”); ¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2000) (holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

§ 25-211; ¶ 16 (App. 2000), and the party seeking to rebut that presumption must prove that the property is separate by clear and convincing evidence.

¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2000) (holding arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-appealing party, -84, ¶ 31 (App. 2000), and will not substitute our opinion for that of the superior court

¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2000) (holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA ¶ 25 n.5 (App. 2000) (holding arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

In the superior court and on appeal, she has cited in support of her request to hold Father liable for payment of half the fair 4 DEDE v. DEDE Decision of the Court rental value of the residence.