Summary
The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed Roger Gates's appeal from Stark County Probate Division orders concerning the appraisal and proposed sale of real property belonging to a ward. The court held that Gates's pro se appellate brief substantially failed to comply with Ohio Appellate Rule 16(A) and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under Appellate Rule 18(C).
Holdings
- An appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution under App.R. 18(C) when the appellant's brief substantially fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of App.R. 16(A) and the deficiencies cannot be cured.
- A pro se litigant is required to comply with the rules of appellate practice and procedure, and an appellate court may not construct legal arguments in support of a deficient appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant's brief failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of App.R. 16(A).
- Whether the appellate court could construct legal arguments on behalf of a pro se appellant whose brief lacked a cogent argument.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (8)
- Zanesville v. Robinson, 2010-Ohio-4843, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.)(followed)
- Musleve v. Musleve, 2008-Ohio-3961, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.)(followed)
- State v. Darby, 2019-Ohio-2186, ¶¶ 21-24 (5th Dist.)(followed)
- Hardy v. Belmont Correctional Inst., 2006-Ohio-3316, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- Oyler v. Oyler, 2014-Ohio-3468, ¶¶ 18-19 (5th Dist.)(distinguished)
- DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 193 (1982)(followed)
- Whitehall v. Ruckman, 2007-Ohio-6780, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.)(followed)
- State ex rel. Petro v. Gold, 2006-Ohio-943, ¶ 94 (10th Dist.)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…