CODY CRITTENDEN, Appellant (Defendant), v. LACEY CRITTENDEN, Appellee (Plaintiff).
S-24-0007
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
May 7, 2024
2024 WY 52
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2024. Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, The Honorable Joseph B. Bluemel, Judge.
Representing Appellant:
Cody Crittenden, pro se.
Lacey Crittenden, pro se.
Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.
[¶1] The district court entered an order granting Cody Crittenden (Husband) and Lacey Crittenden (Wife) a divorce, establishing a custody arrangement for their child, and dividing their marital property. Husband, representing himself, filed an appeal challenging the property division. Finding Husband‘s brief failed to comply with Rule 7.01 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate procedure, we summarily affirm.
ISSUES
[¶2] Husband did not provide this Court with a statement of the issues. Wife‘s brief states the following issues:1
- The district court properly divided the parties’ property; thus, its property division was reasonable, was not an abuse of discretion, and should be upheld.
- Appellant‘s brief generally fails to comply with
W.R.A.P. 7.01 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), and (k)[] and should be summarily dismissed with attorney‘s fees for attorney advisement on this case being awarded to Appellee.
Because we summarily affirm under
FACTS
[¶3] The parties married in 2020 and had one child. Wife, representing herself, filed a complaint for divorce in June 2023. Husband, also representing himself, filed an answer. In August, the district court held a scheduling conference where Wife informed the court the parties had reached a settlement agreement in mediation prior to the filing of the divorce, and she intended to move to enforce the agreement. In November, the district court held a hearing and took testimony from Wife and Husband. After the hearing, the court entered a decree of divorce—using the self-represented litigant form order—establishing child custody and dividing the marital property. Husband timely filed his appeal.
DISCUSSION
[¶4] A party seeking judicial review of a court order must comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[¶5] Husband grossly failed to adhere to the briefing requirements set out in
[¶6] We have stated “[t]hese requirements are not meaningless obstacles to a review by this court of a given case but rather are necessary to drafting an organized, thoughtful, and analytical opinion on well defined issues.” See, e.g., Cor, 2017 WY 116, ¶ 6, 402 P.3d at 994 (quoting MTM v. State (In re KD), 2001 WY 61, ¶ 9, 26 P.3d 1035, 1036–37 (Wyo. 2001)); McInerney, 2023 WY 108, ¶ 11, 537 P.3d at 1149 (citation omitted). Though we tend to make “some allowances” for self-represented litigants, we nonetheless expect them “to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure just as we require trained lawyers to do.” Id., 2017 WY 116, ¶ 6, 402 P.3d at 994 (citations omitted). “[B]latant disregard of our rules of procedure cannot and will not be condoned.” Id. (quoting Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co., 2012 WY 42, ¶ 14, 272 P.3d 963, 966 (Wyo. 2012)). Husband‘s brief critically failed to comply with our rules of appellate procedure as detailed above. We therefore summarily affirm the district court‘s order.
[¶7] Wife requested an award of attorney‘s fees and costs under
