BARKER v. HENRI, 2002 UT App 204

Case No. 20001023-CA.Utah Court of Appeals.
Filed June 13, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)

Appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, The Honorable Pamela G. Heffernan.

Candace S. Bridgess, Ogden, for Appellants.

George B. Handy, Ogden, for Appellee.

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
BENCH, Judge:

“We accord a trial court’s findings great deference, and will not disturb the findings unless they are against the clear weight of evidence.” Anderson v. Brinkerhoff, 756 P.2d 95, 98 (Utah Ct.App. 1988). Accordingly, “we set aside the factual findings of the trial court only if they are clearly erroneous.” Id. “An appellate court’s `review is . . . limited to the evidence contained in the record on appeal.'” State v.Pliego, 1999 UT 8, ¶ 7, 974 P.2d 279 (citation omitted) (alteration in original).

Barkers failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below for review. We must, therefore, assume the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court. See Ames v. Maas, 846 P.2d 468, 474 (Utah Ct.App. 1993). Without a transcript, an appellant’s “`assignment of error stands as a unilateral allegation which the review[ing] court has no power to determine. [An appellate court] simply cannot rule on a question which depends for its existence upon alleged facts unsupported by the record.'”State v. Penman, 964 P.2d 1157, 1162 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (citation omitted) (alterations in original). Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the trial court’s finding that Henri lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

Furthermore, as part of its findings, the trial court found that Henri “did not execute a document entitled `Rental Agreement and Deposit Receipt.'” Henri’s signature is not on the “Rental Agreement and Deposit Receipt” but is on the “Rental Application.” When read together, these documents are ambiguous as to whether an agreement was ever executed. Extrinsic evidence might resolve such ambiguity, but none was offered — at least not as is apparent from the record before us. Therefore, there is no reason to set aside the trial court’s determination that Henri did not execute the Rental Agreement.

Both parties respectively claim they are entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Given the absence of a statute or enforceable contract, we decline to award any attorney fees. See Softsolutions, Inc. v.Brigham Young Univ., 2000 UT 46, ¶ 41, 1 P.3d 1095.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge, and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.