Meyers v. Meyers

Meyers v. Meyers

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Vickie Lund Meyers,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Mark L. Meyers,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040909-CA
 

F I L E D

(February 3, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 50

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Leslie A. Lewis

Attorneys: Mark L. Meyers, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Mark L. Meyers (Husband) appeals the decree of divorce entered by the district court. This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that the grounds for appeal are so insubstantial as not to merit further proceedings or consideration by the appellate court.

    Husband challenges the district court's factual finding regarding the amount of his income. However, this challenge appears to be based in large part upon documents that were not introduced at trial. Furthermore, Husband has not provided a transcript of the proceedings below.

    Rule 11(e)(2) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant urging "that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence" to "include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such a finding or conclusion." Utah R. App. P. 11(e)(2). In the absence of a transcript, this court cannot determine whether the findings were based upon sufficient evidence and will presume the correctness of the findings made by the trial court. See Horton v. Gem State Mut., 794 P.2d 847, 849 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) ("Absent the trial transcript, appellant's claim of error is merely an unsupported, unilateral allegation which we cannot resolve."). Husband has not provided this court with a transcript of the bench trial. This omission precludes any meaningful review when the issue on appeal is the accuracy of a particular factual finding.(1)

    Further, the record on appeal consists of the parties' pleadings and the orders and minute rulings entered by the district court. By his own admission, Husband's appeal is based upon evidence that was not introduced below and not contained within the record. "An appellate court's review is . . . limited to the evidence contained in the record on appeal." State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228,¶2, 75 P.3d 923. Therefore, the evidence is not properly before this court and may not be considered on appeal. See id.

    Thus, on the record properly before the court, and given the issues raised on appeal, we must accept the trial court's factual findings as valid.

    Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Husband also raises arguments concerning findings made by the district court regarding the parties' credit card debt and an award of attorney fees due to Husband's delay. Each of these arguments fail for the same reason mentioned herein, namely, because Husband has failed to provide a transcript, this court cannot determine whether the findings were based upon sufficient evidence and "will presume the correctness of the findings made by the trial court." Horton v. Gem State Mut., 794 P.2d 847, 849 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).