From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorado v. Dorado

Utah Court of Appeals
Apr 15, 2010
2010 UT App. 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 20100017-CA.

Filed April 15, 2010. Not For Official Publication

Appeal from the Fourth District, Provo Department, 084400996 The Honorable Steven L. Hansen.

Apolinar Dorado, Elberta, Appellant Pro Se.

Matthew G. Morrison and Grant W.P. Morrison, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before Judges Davis, McHugh, and Voros.


MEMORANDUM DECISION


Apolinar Dorado appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for a finding of contempt and requiring his visitation with his daughter to be supervised. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review.

In response to the court's motion, Dorado argues facts from his perspective and raises new issues before the appellate court. He asserts that Jennifer Dorado, the physical custodian of his daughter, is unstable and requests that this court grant him custody. These matters were not before the court below. Rather, the hearing regarded supervised visitation and contempt. Generally, this court will not address issues not raised in the trial court.See Hart v. Salt Lake County Comm'n, 945 P.2d 125, 129 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Dorado also fails to identify any other specific issue for review. "[A]n appellant must allege the [trial] court committed an error that the appellate court should correct. . . . If an appellant fails to allege specific errors of the [trial] court, the appellate court will not seek out errors in the [trial] court's decision."Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 7, 194 P.3d 903. Here, Dorado asserts facts favorable to him but fails to address the trial court's ruling or posture of the case. He does not state a legal issue of trial court error in the ruling. Accordingly, he has failed to present any substantial issue for review warranting further consideration by this court.

Affirmed.

Appellee argued in her response to the motion that the order was not a final order and, thus, this court lacked jurisdiction. The order, however, finally determined the contempt matter and therefore was a final appealable order.

James Z. Davis, Presiding Judge, Carolyn B. McHugh, Associate Presiding Judge, J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge.


Summaries of

Dorado v. Dorado

Utah Court of Appeals
Apr 15, 2010
2010 UT App. 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Dorado v. Dorado

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer Dorado, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Apolinar Dorado, Respondent…

Court:Utah Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 15, 2010

Citations

2010 UT App. 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)