Quinn v. Quinn
48592
| Idaho Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2021Background
- Parties: Roger Adrian Quinn (father, pro se) and Karen Andrea Quinn (mother, respondent); they share a minor child.
- Prior to trial, Roger’s brother violently attacked Karen; magistrate found Roger "directly involved in his brother’s attempt to kill Karen." Karen was hospitalized.
- Magistrate awarded Karen sole legal and physical custody and barred Roger from contacting the child.
- Roger appealed to the district court asserting due process and equal protection violations, abuse of discretion, and that findings were clearly erroneous; the district court affirmed.
- On further appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court reviewed the magistrate record for substantial and competent evidence and examined preservation and briefing defects in Roger’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roger) | Defendant's Argument (Karen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roger’s due process and equal protection rights were violated | He was not afforded a hearing to determine parental fitness and was treated differently due to gender | Roger failed to cite authority or preserve the issues; arguments are unsupported | Waived/not preserved; Court declines to consider; affirmed magistrate judgment |
| Whether magistrate abused discretion in awarding sole custody to Karen | Implicitly contended magistrate erred and findings were clearly erroneous | Karen argued magistrate’s decision was proper; Roger’s brief did not address standard of review or the findings | Court did not treat this as a properly presented challenge; magistrate’s custody award affirmed |
| Whether pro se status excuses briefing or preservation failures | Pro se; implied that procedural standards should be relaxed | Pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as represented parties | Pro se status does not excuse failures to cite authority, preserve issues, or provide record citations |
| Whether Karen is entitled to costs and attorney fees on appeal | N/A (Karen sought costs and fees) | Karen sought costs and attorney fees under various rules and statutes | Costs awarded; conventional appellate attorney fees denied for failure to establish statutory basis, but appellate attorney fees awarded as sanction under I.A.R. 11.2 for frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855 (2013) (standard of review for district court acting in appellate capacity over magistrate court)
- Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224 (2009) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as represented parties)
- Powell v. Sellers, 130 Idaho 122 (1997) (issues waived on appeal when unsupported by authority or argument)
- Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 (2010) (failure to preserve issues by making only general attacks)
- Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317 (2013) (issues not supported by cogent argument will not be considered)
- Woods v. Sanders, 150 Idaho 53 (2010) (necessity of record citations to support appellate factual assertions)
- State Dep’t of Health & Welfare v. Slane, 155 Idaho 274 (2013) (Idaho family-law procedural rules do not govern appellate procedure)
- Bergeman v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 164 Idaho 498 (2018) (appellate sanctions under I.A.R. 11.2 analyzed with reference to I.C. § 12-121)
- Sims v. Jacobson, 157 Idaho 980 (2016) (standards for imposing sanctions under appellate rules)
- MacLeod v. Reed, 126 Idaho 669 (Ct. App. 1995) (awarding appellate fees as sanction where appeal was unwarranted by law)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526 (2012) (denying fees where party failed to show statutory basis for I.C. § 12-121)
- Smith v. Smith, 164 Idaho 46 (2018) (appeal may be frivolous when appellant lacks cogent argument and fails to timely appeal)
- Andrus v. Nicholson, 145 Idaho 774 (2008) (awarding fees where appellants did not address district court’s grounds on appeal)