Opinion ID: 2514765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01

Text: [¶7] Because it is potentially dispositive, we address first the claim by Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Shattuck that this appeal should be dismissed because Mr. Dollarhide failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01. This issue requires a two-step analysis: Did Mr. Dollarhide violate W.R.A.P. 7.01; and if so, is dismissal an appropriate sanction? The pertinent portion of Rule 7.01 provides as follows: The brief of appellant shall contain under appropriate headings and in the order indicated: (a) A title page which must include: . . . (2) Identification of party filing the brief; and . . . (j) An appendix, which shall contain a copy of the judgment or final order appealed from and the trial court's written and/or oral reasons for judgment, if any, and the statement of costs required by rule 10.01. [¶8] Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Shattuck contend that Mr. Dollarhide violated this rule because the title page of his brief identifies the filing party as John Dollarhide rather than Jack Dollarhide, and because the brief's appendix does not contain a copy of the order appealed from or a statement of costs. These errors and omissions are apparent on the face of the brief, and we conclude that Mr. Dollarhide violated W.R.A.P. 7.01 in these respects. [¶9] Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Shattuck seek dismissal of the appeal. Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03, the untimely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, while failure to comply with any other rule of appellate procedure . . . is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate. Thus, dismissal is not required in this case. We have previously declined to dismiss an appeal in which, despite technical violations of the appellate rules, the pleadings supplied adequate notice, and meaningful review was not precluded. Montoya v. Montoya, 2005 WY 161, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 265, 268 (Wyo. 2005); Kinstler v. RTB South Greeley, LTD ., 2007 WY 98, ¶ 12, 160 P.3d 1125, 1129 (Wyo. 2007). Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Shattuck do not assert that they were confused by Mr. Dollarhide's use of the wrong first name. They do not claim to have been misled about which district court order was being appealed, or to have been prejudiced in any way. Mr. Dollarhide's rule violations do not preclude meaningful review by this Court, and we decline to dismiss this appeal.