Opinion
Case No. 20050917-CA.
Filed February 24, 2006. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 050913290 The Honorable Ann Boyden.
Michael Hayes, Draper, Appellant Pro Se.
James H. Deans, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mike Hayes appeals the trial court's judgment of past due rent and possession of premises in favor of Carson Real Estate Investment, L.L.C. (Carson). Although Carson filed a motion for summary disposition after Hayes filed his brief, we construe the motion and memorandum in support as Carson's responsive brief.
Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 sets forth the requirements for appellate briefs. See Utah R. App. P. 24. Among other things, an appellant's brief must state the issues for review and the standard of review for each issue identified. See id. 24(a)(5). Additionally, the brief must contain argument presenting "the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Id. 24(a)(9). Appellate courts generally will not address issues inadequately briefed. See MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 947-48 (Utah 1998). Further, a party "challenging a fact finding must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). If an appellant fails to marshal, the appellate court need not consider the challenge to a finding of fact. See Tanner v. Carter, 2001 UT 18, ¶ 17, 20 P.3d 332.
Moreover, an appellant must provide a record adequate to permit review of the issues on appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 11(e);State v. Penman, 964 P.2d 1157, 1162 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). An appellate court cannot rule on an issue not fully presented in the record on appeal. See Penman, 964 P.2d at 1162. "[I]n the face of an inadequate record on appeal, we must assume the regularity of the proceedings below." Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
Hayes's brief fails to comply with the briefing standards and he has failed to provide an adequate record for review. The brief does not present any issue for review, does not include reasoned argument with legal support, and fails to marshal the evidence in support of the factual findings, presumably the target of appeal. Also, the partial record provided does not present the court with an adequate record to evaluate whether the trial court correctly determined the amounts owed. Based on these insufficiencies, this court cannot reach any substantive issue and the trial court's order must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judith M. Billings, Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.