Case No. 20001060-CA.Utah Court of Appeals.
Filed December 12, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod.
Robert L. Flague, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert L. Janicki and Steven T. Densley, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
THORNE, Judge:
Robert Flague appeals from the final judgment of the trial court in favor of Dolphin Pools, Inc. We affirm.
“When considering arguments on appeal, we look to the requirements of rule 24 [of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure] to determine whether an appellant has adequately briefed the issues.” State v. Lucero, 2002 UT App 135, ¶ 9, 47 P.3d 107. Under rule 24, an appellant’s argument must include a concise statement of the issues presented, citations to the trial court record highlighting the asserted error, as well as citations to relevant legal authority that may support the appellant’s argument.See id. at ¶ 9. Here, Flague has failed to comply with even the most rudimentary requirements of rule 24, but most importantly he has failed to point to any part of the record where we could find the errors that he alleges on appeal.
Furthermore, should an appellant intend to argue that a finding or conclusion of the trial court is unsupported by the evidence, it is the appellant’s duty to submit a transcript with the trial court record. See
Utah R.App.P. 11(e).
Appellate review of factual matters can be meaningful, orderly, and intelligent only in juxtaposition to a record by which [a] lower court’s rulings and decisions on disputes can be measured. In this case[,] no such record [has been made] available, and therefore no measurement of the district court’s action[s] can be made as urged upon us by [Flague].
Fackrell v. Fackrell, 740 P.2d 1318, 1319-20 (Utah 1987) (quotations and citation omitted); see also State v. Pliego, 1999 UT 8, ¶ 7, 974 P.2d 279 (“Rule 11(e)(2) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the appellant to make sure that the record on appeal includes all of the relevant evidence.”); State v. Wetzel, 868 P.2d 64, 67 (Utah 1993) (same). In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, we assume that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are correct. See Statev. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); see also Rudolph v. Galetka, 2002 UT 7, ¶ 8, 43 P.3d 467 (“`Absent [a trial court] record, defendant’s assignment of error stands as a unilateral allegation which the review court has no power to determine.'” (citation omitted)).
In the instant case, while we have received the trial court documentary record, we have not received a copy of the trial court transcript upon which Flague has predicated his asserted errors. Absent the transcript, we must assume that the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and that the proceedings were otherwise proper.
Accordingly, because Flague failed to comply with either rule 24 or rule 11(e) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, we affirm the rulings and judgment of the trial court.
WE CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Judge, and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.