Court Opinion

ID: 9742868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:21:58.937151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:37.349046
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Hoffman, C.J.
I dissent from the majority opinion overruling appellees’ motion to affirm or dismiss.
This matter is before us on appellees’ “Motion to Affirm Judgment or Dismiss Appeal.” Such motion alleges as cause *20therefor that appellants’ brief is defective in the following particulars:
1. Appellants’ brief does not set forth either the motion for new trial, or the assignment of errors or the substance thereof;
2. That the argument portion of the brief does not comply with the rule in that each error assigned in the motion for new trial that appellants intend to raise on appeal is not set forth specifically, followed by the argument applicable thereto;
3. That the authorities cited by appellants are meager, consisting of one Appellate Court decision;
4. That appellants have failed to affirmatively show harmful error.
Appellees allege that by reason of the above defects in appellants’ brief, they are unable to determine the exact question, or questions, that appellants intend to present.
I have examined the appellants’ brief and find that the contentions of appellees are true.
Appellants have not asked for leave to amend their brief to supply the omitted matters but, instead, assert that appellants’ brief has been prepared in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure which became effective January 1, 1970.
Under the former rules of practice, it was firmly established that without the assignment of errors being set forth in appellant’s brief, or at least a summary thereof, there was no question presented to the court and the judgment appealed from would be affirmed.
Thus, in Clements, et al. v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 501, 193 N. E. 2d 908, appellee filed a motion to dismiss or affirm based on the fact that appellants had failed to incorporate in their brief a copy of the assignment of errors or any statement concerning its context. Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, stating at 502 of 244 Ind., at 909 of 193 N. E. 2d, as follows:
*21“It is fundamental that in order to present error on appeal such error must be set forth in the assignment of errors, and the specification or specifications of such assignment of errors, or the substance thereof, must appear in the ‘Concise Statement of the Record’ under Rule 2-17 (d). Without such compliance the judges cannot give intelligent consideration to the issues on the appeal without resorting to the record (only one copy of which is available to be shared by the five judges of this Court), and accordingly it is well settled that where appellant’s brief fails to set forth the record or the substance thereof in this important respect, the appellate tribunal is under no duty to search the record to reverse the cause.” (Citing authorities.)
In Board of Med. Regist. and Exam., etc. v. Bowman, (1958), 238 Ind. 532, 150 N. E. 2d 883, appellant’s brief failed to contain a copy of the assignment of errors or any specification thereof. Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, stating at 533 of 238 Ind., at 883-884 of 150 N. E. 2d, as follows:
“Appellant’s original brief fails to contain a copy of the assignment of errors or any specification thereof. Nor does it state the substance of any assignment so that it could be held there was a substantial compliance with the rules on appellate procedure.
“These rules are based upon experience, and are designed to expedite the disposition of appeals, as well as lessen costs and expense for the parties. The rules do not require the record on appeal be printed so that each Judge may have a copy. Appellant’s original brief is required to be prepared in such manner that a printed copy of the record for each Judge will be unnecessary for him to be properly advised on each matter involved in the appeal. The rules in general do provide that appellant’s original brief present his assertions of errors, and so much of the record as may be involved in the determination of the issues he presents on appeal. Each Judge is entitled to be so advised from this brief, and he is not required to examine the record for this information.” (Citing authorities.)
See also:
Livingston, Admr. v. Livingston, Trustee (1961), 132 Ind. App. 572, 178 N. E. 2d 466.
*22The cases above cited were decided before the adoption of the 1970 Indiana Rules of Procedure. Rule AP. 8.3, Indiana Rules of Procedure, does not specifically state that the assignment of errors or the substance thereof must be set out in appellant’s brief. However, neither did former Rule 2-17, Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana, so state; yet the courts consistently held, as reflected in the cases above cited, that the assignment of errors must be set out in appellant’s brief in order to present any question to the court for decision.
The question then becomes: Does Rule AP. 8.3, supra, require the appellant’s brief to contain the assignment of errors, or a summary thereof, as set out in the cases decided under the former rules of practice?
I am of the opinion the answer is in the affirmative, and for the same reasons as set out in the cited cases. Appellant still has the burden of demonstrating, by the record and by the brief, that the trial court committed reversible error. This court still will not search the record, nor do the work of counsel for appellant, in an attempt to find error. The brief should still be prepared so that each judge can be fully informed concerning all the issues sought to be raised, from the brief alone, without having to search the transcript to be informed.
Three other specifications are set out in appellees’ motion to affirm, namely, 1) that the argument portion of the brief does not comply with the rule requiring that each error assigned must be set forth specifically in the brief, together with the argument applicable thereto; 2) that the authorities cited are meager; and 3) that appellants have failed to show harmful error.
Appellants’ brief devotes 76 pages to a recital of the evidence. The argument is contained in slightly over three pages of the brief, and is general in nature, rather than specific. It is not made to appear how the single citation of authority is applicable to the issues sought to be raised.
*23Rule AP. 8.3(A) (7), Indiana Rules of Procedure, provides as follows:
“ (7) An argument. Each error assigned in the motion to correct errors that appellant intends to raise on appeal shall be set forth specifically and followed by the argument applicable thereto. If substantially the same question is raised by two [2] or more errors alleged in the motion to correct errors, they may be grouped and supported by one [1] argument. The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, the reasons in support of the contentions along with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon, and a clear showing of how the issues and contentions in support thereof relate to the particular facts of the case under review.
“When error is predicated on the giving or refusing of any instruction, the instruction shall be set out verbatim in the argument section of the brief with the verbatim objections, if any, made thereto. Any error alleged in the motion to correct errors not treated as herein directed shall be deemed waived.”
The requirements of this rule are substantially the same as those provided for by former Rule 2-17, supra. Therefore, the cases construing former Rule 2-17, supra, are equally applicable to the present Rule AP. 8.3(A) (7), supra. The cases decided under Rule 2-17, supra, consistently held that specifications of alleged error are waived by the failure of the appellant to support the contentions of alleged error by both cogent argument and citations of authority, specifically showing how the authorities cited are applicable to the issues sought to be raised. The reasons for these decisions are stated in Estate of Alexander v. Alexander, (1966), 138 Ind. App. 443, at 448, 212 N. E. 2d 911, at 914, as follows:
“The burden is upon the appellant to establish by his brief and to show by proper reference to the transcript and by cogent argument and the citation of authorities that reversible error has been committed by the trial court. A general summarization in the appellant’s brief containing references to pages and lines in the transcript is not a com*24pliance with the rules of the Supreme Court and the decisions of that court in interpreting rule 2-17. Sinks, Taylor v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 484, 133 N. E. 2d 563. We have pointed out many times that only one judge has the transcript and the burden is upon the appellant to establish by his brief the facts supporting the assignments contained in his motion for new trial.”
While I recognize that one of the purposes of the new rules of procedure is to simplify matters of trial and appellate procedure, nonetheless, the intent of the new rules is not to relieve the appellant from the burden of demonstrating reversible error, nor is the intent to cast upon the reviewing court the burden of searching for error. Appellant still has the duty to point out to the reviewing court the alleged errors, and to support those contentions with valid, convincing argument. Mere assertions or conclusive statements alleging error are not sufficient to sustain the appellant’s burden.
Ecker v. Fuchs (1959), 129 Ind. App. 555, at 566, 159 N. E. 2d 134, at 139, concisely stated the requirements, under the former rule, for the argument portion of an appellant’s brief, as follows:
“The argument portion of an appellant’s brief must do more than set out appellant’s unapplied statements, ideas or suggestions that the trial court has erred in certain mentioned respects. With the privilege of grouping, as provided for in said Rule 2-17 (e), the argument should first direct the attention of the appellate tribunal to the particular assigned error, or to the particular specification in the motion for a new trial, as the case may be, upon which the appellant relies and intends to urge as an error warranting a reversal of the judgment appealed from. This should then be followed by a concise statement of the basis of objection to the complained of ruling, together with an exhibition of all pertinent points of fact and law sought to be presented and how they are applicable to the matter or particular error being discussed. Pertinent statutes, and authorities which support the points and contentions made, should be cited and, where deemed distinctively in point or particularly appropriate as analagous reasoning, quoted from.”
*25This statement is equally applicable to Rule AP. 8.3, supra.
Recently the First Division of this court decided Brotherhood’s Relief and Compensation Fund v. Smith (1971), 267 N. E. 2d 187, in which all the judges of that division concurred. That case had been fully briefed with an appellant’s brief, appellee’s brief and appellant’s reply brief. The basis of the affirmance was that the appellant’s brief did not comply with Rule AP. 8.3 (A) (7), supra, in that the argument section did not present applicable argument and failed to elucidate to the court the law and its applicability to the matter. Two authorities, both of general nature, were cited.
I have compared the appellant’s brief in Brotherhood’s with the one filed in this case and find that each contain the same defects.
The brief herein fails to present any question to this court for decision and appellants have not sustained their burden of demonstrating reversible error.
The majority opinion suggests that all prior experience and all prior interpretation of the rules be abandoned; and that even though a new rule is patterned after the old, which proved workable and of assistance to the lawyers of this State, that this be ignored and the lawyers cast adrift to guess what interpretation and what application might be placed on these rules by future court decisions. With this I cannot agree.
The rules were adopted to aid and assist the court in reaching a fair and just settlement of disputes between litigants. The rules set out what is to be included in the briefs filed by counsel for their clients. The enumerated contents have been deemed essential so that the judges can understand the controversy and the law applicable thereto. Without proper briefs careful and expeditious consideration cannot be given the matter.
Lawyers are entrusted by their clients to properly handle *26their litigation. In this position they are deemed knowledgeable of the law and competent in court procedure. The courts can expect no less from a lawyer. A failure to follow court procedure or to exercise only minimal compliance with court rules not only jeopardizes their client’s litigation, but may place the lawyer’s right to practice law in serious question.
Only by requiring substantial compliance with the rules can the public, the litigants, the Bench and the Bar insure that disputes can be resolved expeditiously and with justice under the law.
The purpose of the rule requirements in respect to briefs is to conserve the time and energy of the court and to clearly advise the opposing party of the issues he is obligated to meet. The brief filed herein by appellants does not fulfill that purpose.
In keeping with the spirit of the new rules as expressed in Rule TR. 1, Indiana Rules of Procedure, “. . . to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action”, I would strike appellants’ brief and order that one be filed in compliance with the rules, within thirty days. (Emphasis added.) I believe such action would accomplish the goals toward which we all strive: 1) decide cases on the merits and not penalize the litigants for the actions of their counsel; and 2) preserve the appellate rules so that a just and speedy determination can be made in all appeals.
Buchanan, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 269 N. E. 2d 172.