Hennick v. GreeneAnnotate this Case
Daryl W. Hennick,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 981471-CA
F I L E D
June 4, 1999 1999 UT App 180 -----
First District, Logan Department
The Honorable Clint S. Judkins
Don S. Redd, Layton, for Appellant
H. Russell Hettinger, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Orme.
Appellant appeals from an order of the district court striking her memorandum in support of objection to commissioner's memorandum decision and confirming the commissioner's decision. We affirm.
Appellant's challenge to the district's court's order striking her memorandum is without merit. The memorandum was untimely filed and it was within the district court's discretion to strike the memorandum as a sanction for appellant's failure to comply with the court's filing order. See Barnard v. Wassermann, 855 P.2d 243, 249 (Utah 1993) (court has power to impose sanctions to enforce its rules and to control proceedings before it).
Appellant's challenge to the district court's adoption of the commissioner's memorandum decision is equally unavailing. Appellant has not provided an adequate record on appeal from which we can ascertain the correctness of the district court's actions. We must therefore presume the regularity of the proceedings below. See State v. Jones, 657 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Utah 1982). In addition, appellant's brief is deficient under rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The nine-page brief contains a total of two pages of argument, neither of which addresses the commissioner's memorandum decision, and is without sufficient legal analysis or authority to allow consideration of the merits of the issue. "This court has routinely declined to consider arguments which are not adequately briefed on appeal." Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (citation omitted). Because appellant has failed to provide this court with a transcript and to brief her challenge to the commissioner's memorandum decision, we decline to reach the merits of her challenge.
Affirmed. Appellee's request for
damages under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 is granted. The case
is remanded to the trial court to ascertain and award said damages, which
shall be in the amount of appellee's expenses incurred by reason of the
appeal, including appellee's reasonable attorney fees and all out-of-pocket
costs incurred on appeal. Payment of such award shall be the sole responsibility
of counsel for appellant and the same shall not be passed on to appellant
or any other person or entity, directly or indirectly.
Russell W. Bench, Judge
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge