{¶ 3} Appellee filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on August 18, 2003, which the trial court granted via Judgment Entry filed August 20, 2003. The matter proceeded to bench trial on September 23, 2003. The trial court entered judgment in favor of appellee and against appellants, jointly and severely, in the amount of $8,000. Appellant Snively filed a Civ. R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on October 23, 2003, which the trial court overruled. It is from the September 24, 2003 judgment appellant appeals.
{¶ 4} At the outset, we note appellant's brief fails to comply with App. R. 12 and 16. Specifically, appellant fails to include a table of contents with page references; a table of cases; a statement of the assignments of error presented for review with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected; a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the case and facts; a conclusion, and arguably, any argument containing the contentions of appellant with respect to each assignment of error; and the reasons in support of these contentions with citations to authorities, statutes and parts of the record upon which appellant argues. Each of these sections is required for an appellate brief pursuant to App. R. 16(A)(1) through (8).
{¶ 5} We also note appellant's brief violates App.R. 19(A), which requires, "double spacing between each line of text except quoted matter," and Loc.R. 9(B), which provides:
{¶ 6} "(B) Length of briefs. In addition to the requirements of App.R. 16, no appellant's * * * brief * * * excluding appendices, table of contents, table of cases, statement of assignments of error, and statement of the issues shall exceed thirty pages,unless, upon a motion requesting an increase of a specific number of pages and the showing of good cause, this Court orders otherwise. No reply brief shall exceed fifteen pages." (Emphasis added).
{¶ 7} Appellant's brief is thirty (30) single-spaced pages.
{¶ 8} Because appellant's brief appears to be in total non-compliance with the rules, we find this filing is tantamount to failing to file any brief. Although this Court has the authority under App.R. 18(C) to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a brief, we, nonetheless, elect not to dispose of appellant's appeal based upon the deficiencies of his brief.
{¶ 9} At oral arguments, appellant Wade Snively conceded the judgment against him individually is valid. Furthermore, because appellant failed to file a transcript, we presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings, and would affirm the trial court's judgment against him individually. Knapp v. EdwardsLab. (1980),
{¶ 10} Appellant's assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 11} The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is affirmed.
Hoffman, J., Gwin, P.J. and Boggins, J. concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, The judgment of the Canton Municipal Court is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.