Hallis v. Hallis, 2009-CA-002051-ME
Father appealed from three orders, all related to child support. Father had previously appealed the first order, entered in May, 2006, but the CA affirmed FC and no discretionary review was sought. Subsequently, father filed motions requesting FC to vacate the 2006 Order. Father appealed FC’s denial of these motions in addition to the 2006 Order.
The CA declined to revisit the 2006 Order because it had already been appealed and affirmed. The CA no longer had jurisdiction to alter the opinion. After eliminating the issues in the 2006 Order, little remained for review. Father failed to advance any argument to support reversal nor were there any manifest errors. Thus, the Fayette Family Court Orders were affirmed.
The CA included a lengthy discussion of the importance of adhering to the format and briefing requirements mandated by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. When an appellate advocate fails to follow the rules, the CA may ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review, strike the brief or offending portions, or review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only. This discussion is informative not only for pro se appellate advocates, but good review for their professional counterparts.
After review of the orders appealed from, the CA found no manifest errors and affirmed the Fayette Family Court.