Stoll v. Phillips

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Avon P. Stoll, Ray Phillipps, Sheila A. Herschi, Gary Phillipps, and Diana P. Larson,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

Harold D. Phillipps,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020609-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 10, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 238

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod

Attorneys: Harold D. Phillipps, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se

Ephraim H. Fankhauser, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Thorne.

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Harold Phillipps (Defendant) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

As he did before the trial court, Defendant appears on appeal pro se. His failure to seek legal counsel has substantially hampered his defense. First, Defendant failed to properly answer the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Eviction filed by Plaintiffs. Rule 8(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires "[a] party [to] state in short and plain terms his defenses to each claim asserted and [to] admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies." Id.(1) Defendant failed to comply with this rule, focusing only on arguments related to ownership of the property in question, without admitting or denying any of the facts and allegations contained in the complaint. Due to Defendant's failure to properly deny the averments contained in Plaintiffs' complaint, they were deemed admitted. See Utah R. Civ. P. 8(d). Thus, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment because no material issues of fact exist. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Defendant also failed to properly answer Plaintiffs' request for admissions as required by rule 36(a)(1) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 5, 2002, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Interrogatories and Request for Admissions. Rule 36(a)(1) requires the response to request for admissions to be filed within thirty days of service. However, Defendant did not file his answer to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions until May 20, 2002, well after the thirty day requirement. Pursuant to rule 36(a)(2), each request for admission is deemed admitted if not answered within thirty days. Therefore, due to Defendant's failure to respond in thirty days, all matters stated in Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions were deemed admitted. Because the admissions were deemed admitted, no material issue of fact exists, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Lastly, "Defendant's brief fails to cite relevant authority or provide any meaningful analysis . . . ." State v. Shepherd, 989 P.2d 503, 510 (Utah Ct. App. 1999). Rule 24(a)(9) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that Defendant's argument "contain the contentions and reasons" for the issues presented for appeal, including "citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Id. Defendant has failed to comply with rule 24(a)(9). Defendant claims on appeal that Plaintiffs unlawfully accused him of unlawful detainer, but provides no analysis of this claim. In addition, he cites to no relevant case law, statutes, or parts of the record to support his argument. "Thus, we decline to [further] address [this appeal] and assume the correctness of the judgment below." Christensen v. Munns, 812 P.2d 69, 72 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).

Affirmed.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Further, Form 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides an example of the proper form of the answer.