Court Opinion

ID: 9571535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:32:30.806389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:33.076113
License: Public Domain

Justice Frye
dissenting.
In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendant’s appeal for failure to file a brief in compliance with Rules 26(g) and 28(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Judge Walker dissented, voting instead to hear the appeal and tax appropriate costs for violating the appellate rules. Thus, the question raised is whether dismissal of the appeal was proper.
Appellate Rule 26(g) provides the required form of papers to be filed with an appellate court, such as the proper point type, size of paper, and line spacing. N.C. R. App. P. 26(g). Appellate Rule 28(b)(5) provides that each question presented in a brief must be followed by the pertinent assignments of error along with the corresponding numbers and pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(5). Appellate Rule 25 details penalties *68for failure to comply with the appellate rules. N.C. R. App. P. 25. Rule 25(a) specifically authorizes dismissal of an appeal for failure of the appellant to take timely action. Rule 25(a) is not at issue in this case.
Rule 25(b), added to the rules by amendment 8 December 1988 — effective 1 July 1989, provides:
A court of the appellate division may, on its own initiative or motion of a party, impose a sanction against a party or attorney or both when the court determines that such party or attorney or both substantially failed to comply with these appellate rules. The court may impose sanctions of the type and in the manner prescribed by Rule 34 for frivolous appeals.
N.C. R. App. P. 25(b). Hence, if an appellate court seeks to impose sanctions for a substantial failure to comply with the appellate rules, Rule 25(b) provides that the court may impose sanctions “of the type and in the manner prescribed by Rule 34 for frivolous appeals.” The sanctions listed under Rule 34 include dismissal of the appeal; monetary damages “including, but not limited to, single or double costs, damages occasioned by delay, and reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred because of the frivolous appeal or proceeding”; and any other sanction deemed just and proper. N.C. R. App. P. 34(b). Rule 34(d), added by amendment 8 December 1988 — effective 1 July 1989, further provides:
If a court of the appellate division deems a sanction appropriate under this rule, the court shall order the person subject to sanction to show cause in writing or in oral argument or both why a sanction should not be imposed.
N.C. R. App. P. 34(d).
Rule 34(d) does not require an appellate court to hold a special hearing to show cause why a sanction should not be imposed. Rather, under Rule 34(d) an appellant can be required to show cause in writing as enumerated in the rule, or the appellate court can simply demonstrate on the record that during oral arguments, it asked the appellant to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. This inquiry can consist wholly of this one question and need not consume more than a brief part of the oral argument.
In the instant case, defendant’s brief was single-spaced, violating Rule 26(g), which requires double-spacing between each line of text in the brief. As Judge Walker noted in his dissenting opinion, neither *69appellant’s nor appellee’s brief complied with Rule 26(g). Defendant also violated Rule 28(b)(5) by failing to properly designate the assignments of error in her brief. Based on these violations, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendant’s appeal. However, the Court of Appeals did so without considering Rule 25(b), which governs imposition of sanctions for substantial failure to comply with the appellate rules.
This case is distinguishable from Bustle v. Rice, 116 N.C. App. 658, 449 S.E.2d 10 (1994), in which the Court of Appeals emphasized that the appellants’ numerous rules violations rendered it “virtually impossible for us to discern to which assignment of error appellants direct their argument; accordingly, we decline to address the merits of the argument.” Id. at 659, 449 S.E.2d at 11. Here, two members of the Court of Appeals’ panel determined that at least one assignment of error was discernible, and Judge Walker was able to identify the assignments of error argued in defendant’s brief. Therefore, under Rule 34(d), this defendant should have been afforded the opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed.
We recognize that appellate courts have the power to dismiss an appeal under the appellate rules. The Court of Appeals has addressed this issue in several cases. In a case involving the appellees’ failure to comply with Rule 26, the Court of Appeals, citing Rules 25(b) and 34(b), stated that while it could elect not to, it chose to consider the brief since Rule 26 had not previously been construed. Lewis v. Craven Reg’l Med. Ctr., 122 N.C. App. 143, 147-48, 468 S.E.2d 269, 273 (1996); see also Paris v. Woolard, 128 N.C. App. 416, 419, 497 S.E.2d 283, 285 (noting that a violation of Rule 26 could result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rules 25(b) and 34(b)), disc. rev. denied, 348 N.C. 283, 502 S.E.2d 843 (1998). Moreover, in Weatherford v. Glassman, 129 N.C. App. 618, 620, 500 S.E.2d 466, 468 (1998), the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a failure to comply with Rule 26(g) could result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, “including dismissal of the appeal, in accordance with Rules 25(b) and 34(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.” (Emphasis added.) However, in both Weatherford and Lewis, the Court of Appeals refers to dismissal of appeals under Rules 25(b) and 34(b), without reference to the Rule 34(d) requirement of ordering the party subject to the sanction to show cause. Id.; Lewis, 122 N.C. App. at 147-48, 468 S.E.2d at 273.
Citing a number of cases, the majority states that failure to follow the appellate rules has consistently subjected an appeal to dismissal. *70However, these cases show that this Court has been slow to dismiss an entire appeal, as distinguished from dismissing specific issues, on procedural grounds. See State v. Glenn, 333 N.C. 296, 306, 425 S.E.2d 688, 695 (1993) (holding that certain assignments of error were deemed waived for failure to comply with Rule 28(d), but not dismissing the appeal); Jim Walter Corp. v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 213, 132 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1963) (reviewing the record despite numerous violations of the General Statutes and Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, but affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the appeal for failure to timely serve the case on appeal); State v. Newton, 207 N.C. 323, 329, 177 S.E. 184, 187 (1934) (reviewing the record despite defendant’s violation of Rule 28 and finding no prejudicial or reversible error); Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913) (examining the record to ensure that no error was committed in the trial and then dismissing for failure to print the record and briefs in accordance with the rules of this Court). In addition, the Court of Appeals, in Wiseman v. Wiseman, 68 N.C. App. 252, 255, 314 S.E.2d 566, 567-68 (1984), considered the appeal, concluding that the appellant’s rule violations did not increase the difficulty of evaluating the appeal due to the record’s brevity and the nature of the issue presented.
Furthermore, these cases must be considered in light of the 1989 amendments to the appellate rules which added, inter alia, subsection (b) to Rule 25 and subsection (d) to Rule 34. While these amendments do not prohibit an appellate court from dismissing an appeal for substantial violation of the appellate rules, they do provide a procedure whereby the offending party is afforded the opportunity to show cause why this most drastic sanction should not be imposed.
In conclusion, the appellate rules prescribe both the type of sanctions and the manner in which they may be imposed. Therefore, I would remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with Appellate Rules 25(b) and 34(d).
Justices Parker and Orr join in this dissenting opinion.