Court Opinion

ID: 9847648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:04:00.879403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:25.119329
License: Public Domain

*509TYSON, Judge
dissenting.
The majority’s opinion acknowledges defendants’ numerous appellate rule violations, but concludes the appropriate sanction is to simply order defendants’ counsel to pay the cost of printing this appeal. Based upon the numerous and egregious violations of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendants’ appeal should be dismissed. Defendants presented no basis and the record does not show any reason to suspend the appellate rules, invoke Appellate Rule 2, and reach the merits of defendants’ appeal. I respectfully dissent.
I. Appellate Rule Violations
“The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and ‘failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.’ ” Viar v. N.C. DOT, 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (2005) (quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999)). Our Supreme Court stated:
It is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant. As this case illustrates, the Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.
Id. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361 (emphasis supplied). Fairness and uniformity demanded and require all appellants and appellees to be treated equally and for the appellate rules to be applied consistently. Otherwise, this Court’s application of the appellate rules becomes an ad hoc case-by-case determination, where neither party nor future parties can anticipate and rely on equal treatment of their appeal. Defendants’ numerous appellate rule violations “subject [its] appeal to dismissal.” Viar, 359 N.C. at 401, 610 S.E.2d at 360 (internal quotation omitted).
A. Defendants’ Assignment of Error Lacks Clear and Specific Record or Transcript References
Defendants’ lone assignment of error fails to reference the record or transcripts in violation of Rule 10 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellate Rule 10 provides, “An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2007) (emphasis supplied). This Court has stated:
*510An assignment of error violates Appellate Rule 10(c)(1) if it does not: (1) state “without argumentation;” (2) specify the “legal basis upon which error is assigned;” and (3) “direct the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific transcript references.”
Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contrs., LLC, 180 N.C. App. 478, 485-86, 638 S.E.2d 222, 228 (2006) (quoting Bustle v. Rice, 116 N.C. App. 658, 659, 449 S.E.2d 10, 10-11 (1994)). “The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory” and it is the duty of the appellate court to enforce them uniformly. Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361; see also Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 789, 156 S.E. 126, 127 (1930) (“We have held in a number of cases that the rules of this Court governing appeals are mandatory and not directory.”).
Here, defendants’ assignment of error fails to contain any “clear and specific record or transcript references.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1). Defendants’ assignment of error solely states, “The Trial Court erred in failure to set aside the Summary Judgment.”
Defendants’ failure to provide record or transcript references in their assignment of error warrants dismissal of the appeal. See Munn v. N.C. State Univ., 173 N.C. App. 144, 151, 617 S.E.2d 335, 339 (2005) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (When the appellant “makes no attempt to direct the attention of this Court to any portion of the record on appeal or to the transcript with any references thereto[]... his appeal must be dismissed for failure to follow our mandatory Rules of Appellate Procedure.”), rev’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 353, 626 S.E.2d 270 (2006); see Jones, 180 N.C. App. at 484-85, 638 S.E.2d at 228-29 (Dismissing assignments of error in part for failure to include specific record or transcript pages with assignments of error.); see also Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 183 N.C. App.-,-,-S.E.2d-,-(2007) (Dismissing appeal in part for failure to include specific record or transcript pages with assignments of error.).
B. Failure to Refer to the Assignment of Error in Defendants’ Brief
In the argument section of defendants’ brief, defendants stated a question presented but failed to reference this Court to any assignment of error pertinent to that question. Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in relevant part, that-an appellate brief “shall contain
*511An argument, to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each question presented. Each question shall be separately stated. Immediately following each question shall be a reference to the assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal.
N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007) (emphasis supplied).
In Hines v. Arnold, this Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal in part for failure “to reference in her brief the assignment of error supporting the argument.” 103 N.C. App. 31, 37-38, 404 S.E.2d 179, 183 (1991). Also, in Holland v. Heavner, this Court also dismissed an appeal in part because appellant “failed to indicate the assignment of error relevant to each argument, and failed to identify any assignment of error by its number or the page where it appears in the record.” 164 N.C. App. 218, 222, 595 S.E.2d 224, 227 (2004). Defendants’ failure to reference their assignments of error in their arguments violates Appellate Rule 28(b)(6) and warrants dismissal of their appeal.
C. Failure to Adequately State Grounds for Appellate Review
Defendants also failed to adequately state the grounds for appellate review in the argument section of their brief. Appellate Rule 28(b)(4) provides, in relevant part, that an appellate brief “shall contain ... A statement of the grounds for appellate review. Such statement shall include citation of the statute or statutes permitting appellate review." N.C.R. App. R 28(b)(4) (2007) (emphasis supplied).
Defendants failed to “include citation of the statute or statutes permitting appellate review.” N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(4). Defendants’ section entitled, “Grounds for Review,” states only, “Defendant Appellant appeals as a right from a Judgment of the lower court.”
In Stann v. Levine, this Court dismissed the appeal in part because “[p]laintiff failed to provide either the statement of grounds for appellate review or citation of any statute permitting such review.” 180 N.C. App. 1, 3-4, 636 S.E.2d 214, 216 (2006). Also, in Hill v. West, this Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to include a statement of grounds for appellate review and no final determination of the parties’ rights had been made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54. 177 N.C. App. 132, 135-36, 627 S.E.2d 662, 664 (2006). Defendants’ failure to adequately state the grounds *512for appellate review violates Appellate Rule 28(b)(4) and warrants dismissal of their appeal.
D. Failure to Adequately State the Standard of Review
In the argument section of defendants’ brief, defendants also failed to adequately state the applicable standard of review for each question presented. Appellate Rule 28(b)(6) provides in relevant part that an appellate brief “shall contain ... a concise statement of the applicable standard(s) of review for each question presented” and “[t]he statement of the applicable standard[sj of review shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.” N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007).
Defendants’ brief states the following standard of review, “The Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the Judgment entered by the Court on September 22, 2005.” Defendants’ statement of the applicable standard of review fails to “contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.” N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
In Stann, this Court dismissed the appeal in part because the appellant failed to state an applicable standard of review. 180 N.C. App. at 4-5, 636 S.E.2d at 216. Also, in State v. Summers, this Court dismissed one of the appellant’s arguments because of his failure to include a statement of the applicable standard of review. 177 N.C. App. 691, 699, 629 S.E.2d 902, 908, appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 360 N.C. 653, 637 S.E.2d 192 (2006). Defendants’ failure to adequately state the applicable standard of review for the question presented violates Appellate Rule 28(b)(6) and warrants dismissal of their appeal.
E. Discretionary Invocation of Appellate Rule 2
Our Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, — S.E.2d-(2007). In Hart, our Supreme Court held, “the Viar holding does not mean that the Court of Appeals can no longer apply Rule 2 at all.” 361 N.C. at 315,-S.E.2d at — (internal citation omitted). Our Supreme Court stated:
The text of Rule 2 provides two instances in which an appellate court may waive compliance with the appellate rules: (1) [t]o prevent manifest injustice to a party; and (2) to expedite decision in the public interest. While it is certainly true that Rule 2 has been and may be so applied in the discretion of the Court, we reaffirm that Rule 2 relates to the residual power of our appellate *513courts to consider, in exceptional circumstances, significant issues of importance in the public interest or to prevent injustice which appears manifest to the Court and only in such instances.
Id. at 315-16,-S.E.2d at --(emphasis supplied) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Supreme Court also noted, “Rule 2 must be applied cautiously.” Id. at 315-16,-S.E.2d at-.
When it is apparent that a party has violated the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we must determine what sanction, if any, is appropriate and whether to apply Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to overlook defendants’ appellate rule violations and review the merits of their appeal. I would decline to do so.
Nothing in the record or briefs demonstrates the need to disregard defendants’ rule violations “t]o prevent manifest injustice” or “to expedite decision in the public interest.” N.C.R. App. P. 2 (2007). Unlike in Hart, this is a civil case and defendants’ appeal contains multiple and not a single violation. 361 N.C. at 316,-S.E.2d at-(“Although this Court has exercised Rule 2 in civil cases ... the Court has done so more frequently in the criminal context when severe punishments were imposed.”). “[T]he Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.” Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361.
Defendants failed to make any showing and the record does not indicate any reasons to invoke this Court’s discretionary exercise under Appellate Rule 2. In the exercise of our discretion, we should not disregard defendants’ multiple and egregious violations of the appellate rules and invoke Appellate Rule 2 under the circumstances at bar.
The majority’s opinion mischaracterizes this Court’s duty when confronted with violations of the appellate rules in light of Hart. 361 N.C. at 316,-S.E.2d at —. In addition or in lieu of dismissal, this Court may impose other sanctions under Appellate Rules 25 or 34 and not invoke Appellate Rule 2. Here, I disagree with the majority’s opinion on what is the proper sanction to impose in the face of defendants’ multiple and egregious violations of the appellate rules. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC, 183 N.C. App. at-,-S.E.2d at -.
Our Supreme Court’s decision in Hart reaffirms the power of appellate courts to impose any number of sanctions, including dis*514missal, and states that Appellate Rule 2 remains available to the court, in its discretion, to reach the merits of the appeal, notwithstanding a violation of the appellate rules. 361 N.C. at 317,-S.E.2d at-. If this Court determines the violations are serious and egregious enough to warrant dismissal, in its discretion the court may, but is not required to, reach or decide the merits of the appeal by invoking Appellate Rule 2 of the appellate rules. Id.
II. Conclusion
The majority and I agree that defendants’ appeal and brief shows multiple failures to comply with the appellate rules. “The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.” Viar, 359 N.C. at 401, 610 S.E.2d at 360 (internal quotation omitted). “It is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant.” Id. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361.
In the exercise of this Court’s discretion, I decline to excuse defendants’ multiple appellate rule violations by ordering defendants to pay the printing costs of this appeal and invoke Appellate Rule 2 to reach the merits of their appeal. The appropriate sanction for defendants’ multiple appellate rule violations is dismissal of their appeal. I respectfully dissent.