2023-Ohio-2461
Ohio Ct. App. 10th
2023

City of Columbus v. Brian K. Payne

No. 22AP-766

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

July 18, 2023

[Cite as Columbus v. Payne, 2023-Ohio-2461.]

(M.C. No. 2021CVI-33174) (REGULAR CALENDAR)

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on July 18, 2023

On brief: Zach Klein, City Attorney, and Paul T. Khoury for appellee.

On brief: Brian K. Payne, pro se.

APPEAL from Franklin County Municipal Court

PER CURIAM.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Brian K. Payne, appeals from a November 18, 2022 judgment entry awarding $1,528.24 in favor of plaintiff-appellee, City of Columbus (“City”). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On November 15, 2021, the City filed a complaint against appellant alleging he earned income that was subject to Columbus municipal income tax from 2016 through 2020. The City alleged appellant owed taxes for this period and sought judgment in the amount of $1,530.39 plus interest, costs, and any other relief the court deemed just and equitable. On December 6, 2021, appellant filed an answer denying that he earned income in Columbus from 2016 through 2020, and the City was “illegally taxing the Labor of a Flesh and Blood Natural Man and it MUST NOT be permitted.” (Emphasis sic.) (Dec. 6, 2021 Answer to Compl. at 2.) Pursuant to Civ.R. 53, the matter was referred to a magistrate and a trial was scheduled for May 18, 2022. On November 7, 2022, the magistrate issued a decision in this matter awarding the City $1,528.24 plus court costs and interest at a rate of 3 percent per annum from the date of the judgment until satisfied. On November 18, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision.

{¶ 3} Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 14, 2022.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶ 4} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:

[I.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT STATED DEFENDANT WAS A RESIDENT, EARNED INCOME AND IS SUBJECT TO COLUMBUS CITY TAXES.

[II.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF “LABOR NOT BEING TAXABLE” WAS NOT CORRECT.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Appellant’s First and Second Assignments of Error

{¶ 5} As an initial matter, we find appellant’s brief deficient as it fails to substantially comply with the requirements of Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(3) and (4), the appellant shall include in their brief “[a] statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected” and “[a] statement of the issues presented for review, with references to the assignments of error to which each issue relates.” (Emphasis added.) An appellant is also required to provide “[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies.” App.R. 16(A)(7). It is well-established law that an appellant is required to provide support for their assignments of error with citation to legal authority. State v. Hubbard, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-945, 2013-Ohio-2735, ¶ 34, citing App.R. 16(A)(7) and 12(A)(2). Compliance with the above referenced rules is mandatory, and a court “may disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App. R. 16(A).” App.R. 12(A)(2); see also Loc.R. 10(E) (“noncompliance with the Appellate Rules or the Rules of this Court” is “deemed good cause for dismissal of an appeal”). A party’s failure to comply with App.R. 16 is tantamount to not filing a brief in the first instance. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cloyes, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-107, 2021-Ohio-3316, ¶ 13, citing JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Allton, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-228, 2014-Ohio-3742, ¶ 6, citing Gomez v. Kiner, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-767, 2012-Ohio-1019, ¶ 7, citing App.R. 3(A) and 18(C).

{¶ 6} While appellant is proceeding pro se in this appeal, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as litigants that have retained counsel. Cloyes at ¶ 9, citing In re Application Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-5478, ¶ 22; Ward v. Ward, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-381, 2021-Ohio-2571, ¶ 5; see also Jordan v. Truelight Church of God in Christ, 10th Dist. No. 20AP-500, 2021-Ohio-2507, ¶ 8, quoting Fields v. Stange, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-48, 2004-Ohio-1134, ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10 (“ ‘In civil cases, the same rules, procedures and standards apply to one who appears pro se as apply to those litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ”).

{¶ 7} Here, appellant has failed to cite with his assignments of errors the place in the record where each error is reflected as required under App.R. 16(A)(3) as well as provide a statement of issues as required under App.R. 16(A)(4). Moreover, appellant has failed to cite in his brief to a single legal authority or parts of the record that he relies on to provide some basis for his claims. App.R. 16(A)(7). Because appellant’s brief fails to comply with the requirements of App.R. 16, we decline to examine appellant’s arguments and dismiss this appeal. App.R. 12(A)(2); Loc.R. 10(E).

IV. CONCLUSION

{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

MENTEL, BOGGS, and LELAND, JJ., concur.

_____________