Jacob v. Cross
283 P.3d 539
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Cross appeals the district court judgment entered November 8, 2010; judgment certified final under Rule 54(b).
- Cross alleges procedural errors at the damages hearing and challenges the sufficiency of evidence.
- Appellees acknowledge an appraisal error related to the judgment but contend it cannot be corrected on the record.
- Rule 24 briefing deficiencies are highlighted: lack of preservation, no proper citations, and conclusory arguments.
- Court notes pro se status but applies standard expectations of briefing and record citation.
- Court indicates the judgment should be amended to reflect the appraisal error; otherwise relief may be sought under Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cross’s brief adequately preserved for review? | Cross preserved issues (Cross). | Appellees contend inadequate preservation. | Not adequately preserved. |
| Did Cross properly brief the issues with record citations? | Cross failed to cite the record and authorities. | Lack of citations prevented review. | Inadequate briefing requires dismissal or limited review. |
| Can the appraisal error be corrected after judgment? | Error lies in appraisal; relief sought after judgment. | Record does not permit correction now; amendment needed. | Amendment of judgment required to address appraisal error. |
| Is the judgment affirmed despite briefing deficiencies? | Appeal arguments unresolved due to briefing. | Judgment stands; errors may be corrected by amendment. | Affirmed, with direction to amend judgment as needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nelson–Waggoner, 2004 UT 29 (Utah) (plain error or exceptional circumstances required for new issues on appeal)
- Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah) (pro se party entitled to consideration but held to reasonable standard)
- Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56 (Utah) (self-represented litigants bear same responsibilities as counsel)
- Phillips v. Hatfield, 904 P.2d 1108 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (adequacy of briefings and preservation required)
- Koulis v. Standard Oil Co., 746 P.2d 1182 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (briefing requirements and preservation of issues)
- Smith v. Smith, 995 P.2d 14 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (inadequate briefing can shift burden to reviewing court)