Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0020-FC
08-14-2018
RAYSENE R. HALL, Petitioner/Appellee, v. MENSAH D. FOLLY, Respondent/Appellant.
Raysene R. Hall, Tucson In Propria Persona Mensah D. Folly, Tucson In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. SP20161100
The Honorable Ken Sanders, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Raysene R. Hall, Tucson
In Propria Persona Mensah D. Folly, Tucson
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Mensah Folly appeals from the trial court's findings on the issue of child support. We affirm.
¶2 In October 2016, Raysene Hall petitioned the trial court to establish legal decision making, parenting time, and child support as to her and Folly's minor child. At a legal decision-making trial in November 2017, the court ordered, among other things, that Folly pay current child support in the amount of $132 per month. The court also found an obligation for past care and support over the period of fourteen months preceding trial, but took the issue of the amount owed for past care and support under advisement.
¶3 In December 2017, the trial court ordered Folly to pay Hall $2,448.00 in past care and support. The court ordered him to pay $100 per month in addition to the current support amount until the past care and support balance was paid in full. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21 and 12-2101(A)(1).
¶4 On appeal, Folly contends that the trial court erred by incorrectly calculating the child support obligations. He argues that the court failed to consider factors in the past care and support calculation that were considered in the current child support calculation. He further argues that changes in his employment should reflect in his current support obligation. Folly, however, did not provide the trial court transcripts on which his arguments rely. The appellant must order and provide the transcripts of the underlying proceedings where relevant to his arguments on appeal. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A) (the appellant is responsible for ordering any transcripts he relies upon for appeal). Otherwise, the reviewing court assumes the transcripts support the trial court's decision. See Johnson v. Elson, 192 Ariz. 486, ¶ 11 (App. 1998).
¶5 The minute entry issued after the trial states that "[f]or the reasons stated on the record, [it is ordered] that [Folly's] request that he be relieved of any past care and support obligations is denied." (Emphasis added.) Further, in its December 2017, Under Advisement Ruling, the trial court made extensive findings on the points to which Folly objects. Due to the lack of a trial transcript, however, there is no way for this court to examine the record, including the testimony offered, the objections made, and the arguments of the parties, to determine whether the record supports the trial court's ruling. Given the assumption that any transcript would support the court's decision, we cannot say the court erred.
It is also unclear whether certain documents Folly provides in support of his appeal were admitted into evidence in the trial court. This court cannot consider evidence if it was not part of the record below. See GM Dev. Corp. v. Cmty. Am. Mortg. Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4-5 (App. 1990) (evidence not considered by trial court may not be considered by appellate court). --------
¶6 Additionally, Folly has also failed to develop a legal argument supported by authority as required by the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6), (7). "In Arizona, opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, setting forth an appellant's position on the issues raised. Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim." State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989). Accordingly, because of these failures, we also deem Folly's attempted arguments waived. See Rice v. Brakel, 233 Ariz. 140, ¶ 28 (App. 2013) (If a party fails to cite relevant portions of the record or address the basis of the trial court's decision, then he waives claim on appeal.).
Disposition
¶7 While we acknowledge that Folly is not represented by counsel, "a party who conducts a case without an attorney is entitled to no more consideration from the court than a party represented by counsel, and is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer." Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). Because Folly failed to provide a trial court transcript and to comply with the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, we affirm the trial court's judgment.