Title: BASOLO v. GOSE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BASOLO v. GOSE2000 WY 8994 P.2d 968Case Number: 99-3Decided: 01/24/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
GOLDEN, Justice.
¶1 Steven Carlo Basolo (Basolo) appeals from the district court's denial of 
his various pro se motions filed after our decision in the domestic relations 
case of Basolo v. Basolo, 907 P.2d 348 (Wyo. 1995). 
Because Basolo's brief is not in accordance with our rules of appellate 
procedure and does not contain pertinent authority or cogent argument, we 
summarily affirm the district court's decision. Basolo merely reargues the 
earlier case. We find his appeal without merit and award costs and attorney's 
fees to the mother, now known as Dulcinda Ann Gose (Gose).
ISSUES
¶2 Appellant Basolo presents only one issue, stated in the form of an 
argument:
[The district court], and the State of Wyoming, lacked subject matter 
jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over the California resident father 
(appellant) and his daughter on April 30, 1993 when [the district court] assumed 
jurisdiction and issued a temporary custody order in disregard for the rigid and 
mandatory provisions set forth in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 28 
U.S.C. § 1738A, Wyoming Statutes 20-5-101 through 20-5-125, and in doing so [the 
district court] offended the [procedural] due process clause and the equal 
protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution due to the fact 
that there had been no service of process and no notice of hearing to appellant 
Basolo as prescribed by law up to and including April 30, 1993.
¶3 Everything in Basolo v. Basolo that is stacked upon [the district court's] 
null and void order, dated April 30, 1993, which clearly offended [procedural] 
due process and equal protection, appellant's constitutionally protected rights 
pursuant to the 14th Amendment U.S.C.A. [sic], should be vacated and declared 
equally null and void and jurisdiction over Basolo v. Basolo should be restored 
to California as a matter of law and constitutionally protected rights.
¶4 Appellee Gose condenses the issue to:
I. Did the Court have jurisdiction to enter its Order of November 10, 1998 
denying Eighteen (18) Motions of the Appellant for the reason that the Defendant 
failed to appear and present any evidence?
FACTS
¶5 Gose filed a complaint for divorce in the District Court of Fremont 
County, Wyoming, on March 5, 1993, approximately three months after she left 
California and moved in with her parents outside Lander, Wyoming. Basolo v. 
Basolo, 907 P.2d 348, 351 (Wyo. 
1995). On November 22, 1994, the district court filed an amended decree of 
divorce.
¶6 The district court held a hearing on March 31, 1998, in response to 
several motions filed by Basolo. Basolo did not attend that hearing, and the 
district court defaulted him on all of those motions. Beginning immediately 
after that hearing, Basolo began filing more motions with the district court.

DISCUSSION
¶7 Failure to comply with our rules of appellate procedure is ground for 
"such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited 
to: refusal to consider the offending party's contentions; assessment of costs; 
dismissal; and affirmance." W.R.A.P. 1.03. We recognize Basolo is not 
represented by counsel in this appeal. However, we expect litigants who choose 
to proceed pro se to comply with the Wyoming appellate rules just as we expect 
trained lawyers to comply with those rules. Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo. 
1995) (quoting Korkow v. Markle, 746 P.2d 434, 435 (Wyo. 
1987)). We also consistently refuse to consider cases where the appellate brief 
fails to present a valid contention supported by cogent argument or pertinent 
authority, Awhether the brief is by a litigant pro se or is filed by counsel.'" 
Id. (quoting E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. Barbe, 764 P.2d 274, 276 (Wyo. 
1988)).
¶8 Basolo's brief is deficient in several respects. He failed to designate 
the April 30, 1993, temporary custody order, upon which he bases the majority of 
his argument, for transmission to this Court. Therefore, the record on appeal 
contains only a copy of the order which was presented as an exhibit in the 
March, 1998, hearing. Rule 3.01 provides A[t]he record shall consist of: (1) The 
original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court. . . ." W.R.A.P. 3.01. 
Basolo's failure to ensure original documents were designated and transmitted to 
this Court violates Rule 3.01. Further, W.R.A.P. 3.05 requires the appellant to 
file a designation for transmission to the appellate court of all parts of the 
record the appellant intends to call to the court's attention. Basolo's brief 
contains six pages of facts included in the statement of the case and the 
statement of facts sections of his brief. The large majority of those facts, if 
they exist anywhere, are not in the record he designated for this appeal. 
Therefore, Basolo violated Rule 3.05 of our appellate rules.
¶9 Basolo's notice of appeal indicates he is appealing the district court's 
November 10, 1998, order. However, in his brief, Basolo's statement of the case 
fails to include: any facts or information pertaining to the appeal at issue, 
the nature of the case on appeal, the course of proceedings for this appeal, the 
disposition in the trial court, or a statement of the facts relevant to the 
issues presented for review with appropriate references to documents listed in 
the index of the transmitted record. See W.R.A.P. 7.01(e). In fact, he does not 
cite to the record on appeal at all. W.R.A.P 7.01(j) requires an appendix to the 
appellant's brief, containing a copy of the final order appealed from and the 
trial court's written and/or oral reasons for judgment, if any. Basolo's brief 
does not have such an appendix, again in violation of our rules.
¶10 Finally, Basolo's brief does not refer to the motions or the resulting 
court order which form the basis of his notice of appeal. He merely refers to 
them as "everything stacked upon her Order since April 30, 1993," and argues the 
district court did not have jurisdiction to issue its temporary custody order on 
that date. As such, his appeal fails to present cogent argument or pertinent 
authority relevant to the order he purports to appeal from in his notice of 
appeal. We continue to refuse to consider positions not supported by cogent 
argument or pertinent authority. See Kipp v. Brown, 750 P.2d 1338 (Wyo. 1988); 
Baker v. Reed, 965 P.2d 1153, 1154 (Wyo. 
1998); Hamburg, 889 P.2d  at 969. Therefore, because Basolo's brief fails to 
conform to our rules of appellate procedure and does not contain argument or 
authority pertinent to the order from which he appeals, we summarily affirm the 
decision of the district court. Hamburg, 889 P.2d  at 969; Baker, 965 P.2d  at 
1155.
¶11 Although we are reluctant to impose monetary sanctions and do so "only in 
those rare circumstances where an appeal lacks cogent argument, where there is 
an absence of pertinent authority to support the claims of error, and/or when 
there is a failure to adequately cite to the record," Basolo has failed to 
comply with any of these standards. Baker, 965 P.2d  at 1154-55 (quoting Amen, 
Inc. v. Barnard, 938 P.2d 855, 858 (Wyo. 
1997)). Therefore, we certify there was no just cause for this appeal and award 
penalties in accordance with W.R.A.P. 10.05. Id. at 1155.
CONCLUSION
¶12 The order of the district court is summarily affirmed. Appellee Gose will 
submit a statement of attorneys fees and costs to this Court for our review so 
that an appropriate award of costs and fees can be ordered.
FOOTNOTES

1 The 
district court's order lists the various motions before it. We decline to list 
them here, as Basolo's brief on appeal does not mention any of them and the 
nature of the allegations presented within the titles of some of the motions do 
not comport with proper decorum before a judicial 
body.