Jon Roozbeh Vazeen, AKA Hassan Vazin v. Michelle Smith Vazin, M2016-01133-COA-R3-CV

Jon Roozbeh Vazeen (Husband, pro se) and Michelle S. Vazin (Wife) married in 1990; Wife filed for divorce in December 2014; no minor children at time of divorce.
After hearing, the trial court dismissed Husband’s counter-complaint, granted Wife an absolute divorce based on Husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, divided marital assets/liabilities, and awarded Husband five years of rehabilitative alimony.
Husband appealed, raising multiple issues (property division and alimony among them) and proceeded pro se on appeal.
Husband’s appellate brief omitted required elements: no table of authorities, sparse citations to the record, no Rule 7 property/debt table, and lack of developed legal argument or authority for most claims.
The Court of Appeals found these briefing deficiencies barred meaningful review and dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and related rules.
Wife requested appellate attorneys’ fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122; the court declined fees, finding the appeal was not frivolous or taken solely for delay.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in dividing marital property and awarding alimony	Husband challenges division and alimony (seeking alimony in futuro) but provided minimal legal support and record citations	Wife defended trial court judgment; argued Husband’s brief failed to preserve issues for review	Appeal dismissed because Husband’s brief failed to comply with appellate briefing rules (waiver for noncompliance)
Whether appellee should be awarded attorneys’ fees on appeal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122	Husband did not specifically contest fee request on the merits in a procedurally compliant way	Wife requested fees and costs as damages for a frivolous appeal or one taken for delay	Request for appellate attorneys’ fees denied; court concluded the appeal was not frivolous or solely for delay

Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (pro se litigants receive some leeway but must meet procedural standards)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (failure to comply with appellate rules may justify not considering issues)
Forbess v. Forbess, 370 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (issues waived when briefs lack required references and authority)
Sneed v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility of Sup. Ct., 301 S.W.3d 603 (Tenn. 2010) (courts will not construct arguments; skeletal briefing results in waiver)
Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328 (Tenn. 2010) (statute allowing damages for frivolous appeals must be strictly construed)