IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

John D. Jacob and Aqua Resources

Unlimited, LLC,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

Jerrold L. Cross and Juniper Ridge, LLC,

Defendants and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20100992‐CA

F I L E D

(July 12, 2012)

   2012 UT App 190

‐‐‐‐‐

Fourth District, Provo Department, 070400563

The Honorable Fred D. Howard

Attorneys: Jerrold L. Cross, Orem, Appellant Pro Se

Bryce D. Panzer, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Davis, Thorne, and Christiansen.

¶1 Jerrold L. Cross appeals the judgment entered by the district court on November

8, 2010.  The judgment was certified as final pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of

Civil Procedure.  Cross alleges various procedural errors with the November 8, 2010

damages hearing, as well as issues concerning the quality of the evidence presented at

that hearing.

¶2 If an appellant fails to adequately brief an issue on appeal, the appellate court

may decline to consider the argument.  See Phillips v. Hatfield, 904 P.2d 1108, 1110 (Utah

Ct. App. 1995); Koulis v. Standard Oil Co., 746 P.2d 1182, 1185 (Utah Ct. App. 1987).  Rule

24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, among other things, requires an appellant

(1) to provide a citation to the record “showing that the issue was preserved in the trial
20100992‐CA 2

court,” see Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(5)(A); (2) to provide a statement of relevant facts

supported by citations to the record, see id. R. 24(a)(7); and (3) to provide an argument

“with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on,” see id. R.

24(a)(9).  Cross failed to comply with any of these requirements.

¶3 First, Cross fails to cite to where in the record the issues presented in the appeal

were preserved for review.  This is important because “[u]nder ordinary circumstances,

we will not consider an issue brought for the first time on appeal unless the trial court

committed plain error or exceptional circumstances exist.”  See State v. Nelson‐Waggoner,

2004 UT 29, ¶ 16, 94 P.3d 186.  Cross neither demonstrates that his issues were

preserved for appeal nor argues that the district court committed plain error.  Second,

while Cross attached an addendum to his brief, and on occasion cites generally to that

addendum, he fails to cite to the record as required by the rule, thereby leaving the

responsibility of combing through the record to this court.  Finally, Cross fails to

provide any argument with citations to authorities or the parts of the record relied upon

to support his arguments.  Instead, Cross sets forth nine separate conclusory statements

as his argument.  He fails to provide any factual or legal basis to support these

conclusory statements.  As a result, the issues are inadequately briefed because he has

completely shifted the burden of researching the record and applicable law to the court.

See Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 14 (“An issue is inadequately briefed

when the overall analysis is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and analysis to

the reviewing court.”).

¶4 The court acknowledges that Cross appeared pro se, and, as such, is entitled to

“every consideration that may reasonably be indulged.”  Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d

1207, 1213 (Utah 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).  “However, ‘[a]s a general

rule, a party who represents himself will be held to the same standard of knowledge

and practice as any qualified member of the bar. . . .’” Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 11,

194 P.3d 903 (quoting Nelson, 669 P.2d at 1213).  Consequently, “‘[r]easonable

considerations do not include . . . attempt[ing] to redress the ongoing consequences of

the party’s decision to function in a capacity for which he is not trained.’”  Id. (quoting

Nelson, 669 P.2d at 1213).  Here, Cross’s brief simply provides too little information for

the court to analyze the issues he presents for review.

¶5 Despite the inadequate briefing, Appellees acknowledge that after entry of the

judgment, and during the course of the ongoing litigation against other parties, an error
20100992‐CA 3

was found in the appraisal that supported the judgment against Cross.  This error

cannot be corrected based upon the record before the court because Cross failed to

preserve any argument concerning the use of the appraisal, and any evidence

concerning the error was discovered after entry of the judgment against Cross.

Appellees and their counsel have represented to this court that “[w]hen the District

Court resolves the balance of the case, [Appellees] intend to seek an amendment of the

judgment against Cross to correct the error.”  Accordingly, the judgment must be

amended in accordance with Appellees’ representation.  If the judgment is not

amended, Cross should seek relief under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil

Procedure.

¶6 Affirmed.

____________________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________

Michele M. Christiansen, Judge