Freedman (Barnett) v. Freedman

Freedman (Barnett) v. Freedman

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----

Laurie L. Freedman (Barnett),

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Gilbert Freedman,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20030476-CA

F I L E D
(July 29, 2004)

2004 UT App 257

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable Steven L. Hansen

Attorneys: Gilbert Freedman, Lehi, Appellant Pro Se

Clayne I. Corey, Midvale, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Gilbert Freedman appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his amended verified counterclaim. Freedman filed his amended counterclaim in September 2002. The court dismissed the counterclaim on April 24, 2003. The core underlying proceeding is a divorce action commenced in 1995, with the entry of a divorce decree and settlement agreement in 1997.

Although counsel for Freedman filed the notice of appeal and the docketing statement, counsel subsequently withdrew at Freedman's request. Freedman filed his brief and reply brief pro se. Generally, "'a party who represents himself will be held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as any qualified member of the bar.'" Lundahl v. Quinn, 2003 UT 11,¶3, 67 P.3d 1000 (quoting Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1213 (Utah 1983)). However, because of a pro se party's lack of technical knowledge of law and procedure, pro se litigants should be given "every consideration that may reasonably be indulged." Id.

Giving Freedman every indulgence, his briefs fail to meet even lenient standards for briefing under rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 24 requires a statement of the issues with citations to the record showing the issue was preserved; a statement of the course of the proceedings in the case below; a statement of relevant facts, including citations to the record; and an argument containing the contentions and reasoning regarding the issues presented, including citations to supporting authority and to the record. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5), (7), (9). Additionally, the brief must be "concise, presented with accuracy, logically arranged . . . and free from burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial or scandalous matters." Utah R. App. P. 24(j).

Freedman's briefs do not comply with these standards. He asserts in his opening brief that the order from which he appeals is the divorce decree and property division, entered in 1997. The divorce decree was not timely appealed in 1997, and is not appealable now. See Utah R. App. P. (4)(a) (providing notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of entry of order). His entire briefs attack the property settlement in the divorce, to which he stipulated, and fail to address the April 24 dismissal of his counterclaim. There are no record citations to support his facts, many of which are irrelevant and scandalous.

Freedman's briefs do not present a coherent, reasoned argument demonstrating any error of the trial court, and fail to make any argument regarding the appealed order. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge