[1.] Whether the Court abused its discretion when it determined that a district court’s mistake of law does not justify setting the judgment aside under Rule 60(b).
[2.] Whether the Court incorrectly applied North Dakota law in calculating and distributing the marital estate.
[3.] Whether the Court abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff invited error in regards to the legal errors applied to the disposition of the marital home.
[4.] Whether the Court abused its discretion by not awarding spousal support to the plaintiff.

Supplemental Issues of Appellant:
[1.] Whether the Court abused its discretion by granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Denying Plaintiff’s Countermotion for Contempt.
[2.] Whether the Order was clearly erroneous under North Dakota law.
[3.] Whether the Court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous.

Second Supplemental Issues of Appellant:
Whether the Order denying Permanent Spousal Support was clearly erroneous under North Dakota Law.

[¶1] A Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal.
[¶2] The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Jennifer failed to establish sufficient grounds to disturb its initial judgment distributing the marital assets.
[¶3] The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that Jennifer failed to establish sufficient grounds to disturb its initial judgment denying spousal support.
[¶4] The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Terry’s Motion to Stay or determining it was not frivolous.
[¶5] The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jennifer’s Countermotion for contempt.
[¶6] Jennifer’s Appeal is frivolous.