Opinion
Case No. 20010179-CA.
Filed June 27, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District, Coalville Department, The Honorable Leon A. Dever.
Franklin Richard Brussow, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
David B. Thompson, Portland, Oregon, and Christina Inge Miller, Park City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3).
"[Where an] appellant . . . urge[s] on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion." Utah R. App. P. 11(e)(2). See Fackrell v. Fackrell, 740 P.2d 1318, 1319-20 (Utah 1987) (explaining that absence of transcript precludes meaningful appellate review). Furthermore, "[t]o successfully appeal a trial court's findings of fact, appellate counsel must" also adequately marshal the evidence. Oneida/SLIC v. Oneida Cold Storage Warehouse, Inc., 872 P.2d 1051, 1052-53 (Utah Ct.App. 1994). "`In order to properly discharge the [marshaling] duty . . ., the challenger must present, in comprehensive and fastidious order, every scrap of competent evidence introduced at trial which supports the very findings the appellant resists.'" Id. at 1053 (alterations and emphasis in original) (quoting West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct.App. 1991)). Without a transcript, proper marshaling of the evidence is impossible.
In this case, where Appellant chose not to provide a transcript and has not met his marshaling burden, we have no choice but to "assume that the evidence support[s] the . . . findings." Utah Med. Prods., Inc. v. Searcy, 958 P.2d 228, 233 (Utah 1998). See Oneida, 872 P.2d at 1052-53.
District courts are granted "broad latitude" in distributing property and setting alimony awards in divorce proceedings. Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Utah 1985). Having accepted the trial court's findings as valid, we are not persuaded that the court abused its discretion in adjusting the rights and obligations of the parties in the manner it did. See id. (holding awards of alimony and distributions of property are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge, and Russell W. Bench, Judge.