proceedings following the entry of a final judgment. Id. at ¶3. The opposing party filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) seeking relief from the final judgment. Id. The district court granted the motion noting that the discharge of debt created a “terrible disparity between the financial situations of the parties.” Id. at ¶ 11. [¶ 48] A motion under Rule 60(b) would not disrupt our general rule that assets are to be valued as of the date of trial. Rule 60(b) is the proper vehicle uqder which the district court should be asked to determine whether the judgment has been rendered unjust by the change in asset values subsequent to trial. Rule 59(j), N.D.R.Civ.P., is not an appropriate vehicle for considering events occurring after trial. Porter v. Porter, 274 N.W.2d 235, 242 (N.D. 1979) (<HOLDING>); Piper v. Piper, 239 N.W.2d 1, 4 (N.D. 1976)
holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages holding events occurring after trial are not grounds for a new trial