Opinion
No. 06-717.
Filed 15 May 2007.
Guilford County No. 86 CVD 8875.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 February 2006 by Judge H. Thomas Jarrell in Guilford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 January 2007.
Rebecca B. Dye, pro se, for defendant/appellant. John B. Hatfield, Jr., for plaintiff/appellee. Ernest J. Wright, amicus curiae.
In 1986, Carey James Dye (plaintiff) filed for custody of and visitation with the two children he and Rebecca B. Dye (defendant) had together. Defendant was ordered to pay child support. Defendant did not consistently pay support, and by 17 November 2003 she owed $19,721.25. On 25 November 2003, Judge Frederick B. Wilkins, Jr. entered an order finding that the court had jurisdiction, that defendant's arrears were $19,721.25, and reducing the arrears to a civil judgment, with interest, in plaintiff's favor. An appeal bond was set at $19,721.25, and defendant was ordered to serve thirty days in jail for criminal contempt of the court's order. Defendant did not serve this sentence.
On 1 December 2003, defendant appealed the 25 November 2003 order and posted the appeal bond. On 13 May 2004, this Court entered an order dismissing defendant's appeal.
On 6 September 2005, defendant filed a motion in district court requesting the return of her appeal bond. On 24 October 2005, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the appeal bond be released to him to satisfy the 25 November 2003 judgment and that defendant be incarcerated for thirty days. On 21 February 2006, Judge H. Thomas Jarrell entered an order authorizing the clerk to release the appeal bond to plaintiff. In the same order, Judge Jarrell ordered that the payment satisfied the civil judgment against defendant and that defendant was therefore excused from serving the thirty day sentence. It is from this order that defendant appeals.
We note preliminarily that defendant has committed various and substantial violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, including but not limited to the following: (1) defendant's record on appeal was paginated sporadically, when at all, and in no particular order, in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 9(b)(4) (2007); (2) defendant's assignments of error were not concise, and were extensively argumentative, in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2007); (3) defendant's statement of the facts in her brief was argumentative and at times incomprehensible, in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5) (2007); and (4) defendant failed to organize her brief in any coherent manner: there was no separate argument section, no separate statement of each question presented with a reference to assignments of error and the appropriate standard of review, nor were there even paragraphs, all in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007). As this Court has stated, the Rules of Appellate Procedure "apply to everyone — whether acting pro se or being represented by all of the five largest law firms in the state." Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124, 125, 519 S.E.2d 316, 317 (1999). Accordingly, as a result of gross rules violations, this case must be dismissed.
Moreover, we note that even were we to consider this case on the merits, defendant's claim is controlled by this Court's decision in Barrett v. Barrett, 122 N.C. App. 185, 468 S.E.2d 264 (1996). In Barrett, we held that "[t]he primary purpose of a bond is to provide a source of funds to be applied to the satisfaction of a valid judgment." Id., 122 N.C. App. at 187, 468 S.E.2d at 266. The 21 February 2006 order puts the bond at issue to its proper purpose, namely, satisfaction of the judgment against defendant. Defendant's appeal is therefore entirely without merit.
Dismissed.
Panel consisting of:
Judges MCGEE, BRYANT, and ELMORE.
Report per Rule 30(e).