From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Dorman

Supreme Court of Montana
May 8, 2023
DA 22-0629 (Mont. May. 8, 2023)

Opinion

DA 22-0629

05-08-2023

BILLY BUDD SULLIVAN and HARRY RICHARDS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALICIA DORMAN and JASON FORTNEY, Defendants and Appellees.


ORDER

On May 8, 2023, appearing on their own behalf, Billy Sullivan and Harry Richards filed an opening brief on appeal. Rules 11 through 13 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth the requirements for filing appellate briefs. After reviewing the brief filed by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Richards on May 8, 2023, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the Rules and must be resubmitted.

In prior orders, we granted Appellants' motion for out-of-time appeal and their motion to proceed without securing a transcript. As indicated in those orders, the Court will give some leeway to the Appellants, like it does all self-represented parties, but there are certain requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure that are essential to an appeal.

The Appellants appear to be appealing from the District Court's final order issued October 4. 2022, but they also call into question a previous summary judgment order declaring that Appellees Dorman and Fortney hold an easement. Appellants must include as an appendix to their brief copies of the order or orders from which they are appealing, as required by M. R. App. P. 12(h). Further, because this Court may consider only facts and materials presented to the District Court. Appellants may not attach photographs as exhibits to their brief unless they show that the photographs were included in the evidence the District Court considered, by reference to an exhibit number or a document filed with the court to which these photographs were attached. (See Rule 12(9).) Appellants are cautioned that, without a sufficient record, this Court may be unable to fully review their arguments regarding errors in the District Court's factual findings. For that reason, even though they have been unable to secure a transcript of the testimony, Appellants should make reference to anything else in the record that supports their arguments.

Finally, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 13(2), Appellants must provide seven copies of the revised brief, along with the signed original, to the Clerk of this Court.

Although the brief lacks compliance with other particulars of the appellate rules, the Court will accept a revised brief with the corrections noted above.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the signed original of the referenced brief be returned for revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rules;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a signed original and seven copies of the revised brief ordered herein be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order with the Clerk of this Court and that one copy of the revised brief be served on all parties of record;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the postage costs for returning the referenced copies of Appellants' brief will be billed to Appellants by the Clerk of this Court and shall be due and payable upon receipt; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for the Appellees to file their response brief, contained in M. R. App. P. 13, shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to the Appellant to mail a true copy of this Order to all parties of record.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Dorman

Supreme Court of Montana
May 8, 2023
DA 22-0629 (Mont. May. 8, 2023)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Dorman

Case Details

Full title:BILLY BUDD SULLIVAN and HARRY RICHARDS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v…

Court:Supreme Court of Montana

Date published: May 8, 2023

Citations

DA 22-0629 (Mont. May. 8, 2023)