SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2908-15T3

SALI GUIRGUIS,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RAMEZ MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

Submitted September 13, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Manahan and Suter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex 

County, Docket No. FM-12-1719-12.

Ramez Morris, appellant pro se.

Lane & Lane, LLC, attorneys for respondent 

(Daniel J. Lane, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This matter is before us on appeal by defendant Ramez Morris 

from a post-judgment Family Part order dated February 1, 2016, 

which denied his motion for reconsideration of a prior order and 

granted, in part, plaintiff Sali Guirguis' motion in aid of 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

September 28, 2017
2 A-2908-15T3

litigant's rights.1 Having considered defendant's brief and 

appendix in terms of compliance with the rules of procedure set 

forth in Part II, "Rules Governing Appellate Practice in the 

Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court," 

we are constrained to dismiss the appeal with prejudice but without 

costs.

The parties were married in July 2006. One child, a daughter, 

was born of the marriage. The parties were divorced by dual 

judgment of divorce in December 2012. The judgment incorporated 

a matrimonial settlement agreement. Thereafter, the parties 

engaged in ongoing motion practice, which resulted in the entry 

of orders including the present order under appeal. 

Defendant, who is self-represented, filed a notice of appeal 

from the February 1 order on March 17, 2016, along with an 

accompanying case information statement (CIS). R. 2:5-1. For 

many months thereafter, defendant failed to file a conforming 

brief and appendix per Rule 2:6-1 and Rule 2:6-2. Although we 

ultimately accepted defendant's brief and appendix, that 

acceptance did not constitute our "imprimatur" of conformance. 

 

1 The order contains nineteen discrete paragraphs. Eleven of the 

paragraphs either denied the relief sought by both parties without 

prejudice, including defendant's motion for reconsideration, or 

denied the relief sought as moot. The order provided for payment 

schedules relating to defendant's previously ordered reimbursement 

of medical expenses to plaintiff and for plaintiff's counsel fees.
3 A-2908-15T3

Rather, our acceptance was to afford defendant an opportunity to 

prosecute his appeal subject to our plenary review both on the 

appeal's procedural compliance and on the appeal's merits.

We commence by noting that parties to appeals must fully 

comply with the appellate rules. In Still v. Ohio Casualty 

Insurance Company, 189 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 1983), this 

court addressed rule compliance:

The rules which deal with appellate 

briefs are few in number, easy to understand

and simple to follow. Each rule was adopted 

for a specific reason. Together, they 

contribute to make the administration of 

justice smoother and more expeditious. Any 

violation of the rules makes it more difficult 

for the courts to operate, slows down the 

administration of justice and increases its 

costs. Violations cannot and will not be 

tolerated. 

[Id. at 236.] 

In Abel v. Elizabeth Board of Works, 63 N.J. Super. 500 (App. 

Div. 1960), we held that our rules "are more than guides and 

admonitions. They were made to be complied with and should not 

be lightly disregarded." Id. at 509.

Failure to abide by the appellate rules implicates sanctions, 

including the sanction of dismissal. R. 2:9-9 states:

Failure properly to prosecute or defend 

an appeal or proceedings for certification 

shall be ground for such action as the 

appellate court deems appropriate, including, 

but not limited to, dismissal of the appeal 
4 A-2908-15T3

or petition, imposition of costs or attorney's

fees or such other penalty as may be assessed 

personally against the attorney. 

In terms of relaxation of the rule's requirements in a case 

of a self-represented litigant, as here, there is no assurance of 

lenity. As we held in Venner v. Allstate, 306 N.J. Super. 106

(App. Div. 1997), status as a pro se litigant does not relieve the 

obligation of compliance with the rules. Id. at 110.

To be sure, we recognize that dismissal of the appeal is the 

ultimate sanction and one which must be cautiously invoked. See

Crispin v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 96 N.J. 336, 345 (1984); Gnapinsky 

v. Goldyn, 23 N.J. 243, 247-48 (1957). As such, we have considered 

alternative sanctions but conclude those alternatives lack 

contextual suitability. 

In our view, the deficiencies in defendant's appeal would not 

be remediated by reprimand, censure, suppression of the brief and 

appendix, monetary sanctions or assessments of costs and 

attorney's fees. The deficiencies of the brief include but are 

not limited to: failure to provide a concise statement of facts 

with references to the appendix and the transcript; failure to 

include legal argument that contains point headings so as to afford 

a reviewing court to arrive at a proper determination based on 

legal authority; and failure to address only those issues relating 

to the appeal of the order. R. 2:6-2(a)(5); R. 2:6-2(a)(6).
5 A-2908-15T3

A proper statement of facts is vital to the appellate process. 

Patel v. Erhardt, 177 N.J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 1981). In Patel, 

we noted that the required statement of facts is critical to our 

"independent examination of the record." Id. at 558. As well, 

we have frequently emphasized the need for point headings in the 

brief's legal argument, as proper presentation of applicable law 

is essential to appellate review. See Hayling v. Hayling, 197 

N.J. Super. 484, 488-89 (App. Div. 1984). The failure to provide 

point headings in the presentation of legal argument has resulted 

in our declining to consider the issue raised. See Solar Energy 

Indus. v. Christie, 418 N.J. Super. 499, 508 (App. Div.), certif. 

denied, 207 N.J. 190 (2011).

Further, defendant's failure to provide a conforming brief 

is in derogation of his responsibility to refer us to specific 

parts of the record that support his argument. It is not our 

obligation to "scour the record" in search of such support. See

Spinks v. Twp. of Clinton, 402 N.J. Super. 454, 463 (App. Div. 

2008). 

Nor is the defendant's failure to conform to our appellate 

rules to be indulged as "form over substance." The product of 

defendant's non-conformance is a legal argument that is rambling, 

disjointed, raises issues outside the notice of appeal, and lacks 

requisite reference to controlling decisions of law. This does 
6 A-2908-15T3

not just unduly burden us; it prevents us from exercising our

appellate role.

Finally, we have considered the sanction of a dismissal

without prejudice. However, when considering the numerous 

opportunities provided to defendant over many months to cure his 

non-conformance, as well as plaintiff's interest to have the appeal 

timely resolved, we exercise our discretion per Rule 2:9-9 and 

dismiss the appeal with prejudice. 

Dismissed.