Randle v. Randle

----ooOoo----

Mary Beth Randle,
Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

David W. Randle,
Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010287-CA

F I L E D
June 6, 2002 2002 UT App 197 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki

Attorneys:
David W. Randle, Sandy, Appellant Pro Se
Brent R. Chipman, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Davis, Orme, and Thorne.

DAVIS, Judge:

Appellant David Randle claims the trial court erred by determining that he was not entitled to calculation of child support with reference to the schedule for joint physical custody, and by imputing income, for purposes of determining child support, without a hearing. He also claims the trial court improperly awarded attorney fees. We affirm. "When considering arguments on appeal, we look to the requirements of [Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure] to determine whether an appellant has adequately briefed the issues." State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135,¶9, 446 Utah Adv. Rep. 17. An appellant's brief must contain [a] statement of the issues presented for review, including for each issue: the standard of appellate review with supporting authority; and (A) citation to the record showing that the issue was preserved in the trial court. Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5)(A). This rule also requires that "'[t]he argument shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, including the grounds for reviewing any issue not preserved in the trial court, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.'" Lucero, 2002 UT App 135 at ¶9 (quoting Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9) (alteration in original)).

Appellant has not only "failed to include any relevant citations, authority, or meaningful legal analysis that would support his [arguments]," id. at ¶11, he has also failed to set forth the standard of review applicable to the issues presented. See id. at ¶10. This court has held that the purpose of rule 24 is to "'focus on the briefs, thus promoting more accuracy and efficiency in the processing of appeals.'" Id. at ¶13 (quoting Burns v. Summerhays, 927 P.2d 197, 199 (Utah Ct. App. 1996)).

In this case, Appellant points to no evidence in the record that would contradict the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Appellant's argument section fails to set forth his arguments, but instead reargues his theory of the case with references to "The United Methodist Book of Discipline" rather than the record or case law to support his contentions.

This court is unable to review this case on appeal due to Appellant's failure to provide adequate legal analysis or authority to support his contentions on appeal. We therefore affirm.
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge