Opinion ID: 1850435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Appellees' Failure to File a Brief

Text: We note at the outset that the Smiths, appellees in this case, have failed to file a brief. If an appellee fails to file the appellee's brief as required, such brief if later filed may be stricken from the record on motion of appellant or on the Court's own motion. An appellee who fails to file a brief will not be heard at oral argument except by permission of the Court. Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 31(d) (1988). Although unsaid in 31(d), [t]he rule has been stated in numerous cases that the failure of the appellee to file a brief is tantamount to a confession of error and will be accepted as such unless we can with confidence say, after considering the record and brief of appellant, that there was no error. Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss. 1968). See also Queen v. Queen, 551 So.2d 197, 199 (Miss. 1989); Sparkman v. Sparkman, 441 So.2d 1361, 1362 (Miss. 1983); State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss. 1981). This rule is reaffirmed in today's decision. The chancellor found that Snow Lake and Overstreet breached the agreement, and as a consequence of that breach the Smiths were entitled to damages. We cannot with entire confidence reach the same result.