SALI GUIRGUIS VS. RAMEZ MORRIS(FM-12-1719-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2908-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in December 2012; judgment incorporated a matrimonial settlement agreement and one child was born of the marriage.
- Post-judgment motion practice produced a Family Part order dated February 1, 2016, resolving various motions and directing payment schedules and counsel fees.
- Defendant (Morris), pro se, appealed the February 1, 2016 order on March 17, 2016, and filed a case information statement but failed for many months to file a conforming brief and appendix under Rules 2:6-1 and 2:6-2.
- Appellate Division temporarily accepted defendant’s late brief and appendix solely to permit prosecution of the appeal, reserving review of procedural compliance and merits.
- The court found the brief deficient: no concise statement of facts with record citations, no point-heading legal argument, rambling issues including matters outside the notice of appeal, and failure to cite controlling law or specific record references.
- After considering lesser sanctions and the many opportunities given to cure defects, the court dismissed the appeal with prejudice under R. 2:9-9.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonconforming appellate brief warrants dismissal | Guirguis argued defendant failed to comply with appellate rules and sanctions are appropriate | Morris contended (implicitly) that his pro se status or substantive arguments should excuse procedural defects | Appeal dismissed with prejudice for persistent noncompliance with appellate rules (R. 2:9-9) |
| Whether pro se status excuses strict rule compliance | Guirguis relied on rules to require compliance regardless of status | Morris argued (implicitly) for leniency because he is self-represented | Pro se status does not excuse rule compliance; no special lenity (Venner) |
| Whether lesser sanctions would suffice | Guirguis favored enforcement of rules and final resolution | Morris sought opportunity to cure/relief from harsh sanction | Court considered but rejected lesser sanctions as unsuitable given prolonged noncompliance and prejudice to plaintiff |
| Whether court should search record to supplement deficient brief | Guirguis argued appellant must cite record; court should not scour record | Morris relied on court to identify supporting record material | Court refused to scour record; appellant must cite specific record support (Spinks) |
Key Cases Cited
- Still v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 189 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 1983) (rules for appellate briefs are simple and must be followed; violations will not be tolerated)
- Abel v. Elizabeth Bd. of Works, 63 N.J. Super. 500 (App. Div. 1960) (appellate rules are mandatory and must be complied with)
- Venner v. Allstate, 306 N.J. Super. 106 (App. Div. 1997) (pro se litigant not relieved of obligation to follow rules)
- Crispin v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 96 N.J. 336 (1984) (dismissal is an extreme sanction that must be cautiously invoked)
- Gnapinsky v. Goldyn, 23 N.J. 243 (1957) (discussing careful application of dismissal sanctions)
- Patel v. Erhardt, 177 N.J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 1981) (statement of facts with references is critical to appellate review)
- Hayling v. Hayling, 197 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div. 1984) (need for point headings in legal argument for appellate review)
- Solar Energy Indus. v. Christie, 418 N.J. Super. 499 (App. Div. 2011) (issues not presented with proper point headings may be declined)
- Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 454 (App. Div. 2008) (appellate court is not required to scour the record for appellant’s supporting material)