Peter J. Readnour v. Jennifer Readnour

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 2022 CA 000446
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: JULY 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2022-CA-0446-MR

PETER J. READNOUR APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER J. MEHLING, JUDGE ACTION NO. 14-CI-01978

JENNIFER READNOUR APPELLEE

OPINION & ORDER DISMISSING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

CALDWELL, JUDGE: This appeal involves the entry of an order assessing a

judgment against the father in favor of the mother for delinquent child support in

the amount of $34,500. We dismiss the appeal, having stricken the brief as not

complying with the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”).

The parties were divorced in 2015 with the entry of a decree of

dissolution in the Kenton Circuit Court. The settlement agreement between the

parties was incorporated into and made a part of the decree. Per the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement, Peter Readnour (“Peter”), was to pay child

support to his former wife, Jennifer Readnour (“Jennifer”), in the amount of $1,700

per month.

In 2022, a hearing was held concerning arrears Peter owed Jennifer as

Jennifer was alleging Peter had not consistently paid support in the intervening

years, particularly since 2019. Following the hearing, the Kenton Circuit Court

entered an order upholding an arrearage amount of $34,500 as testified to by

Jennifer. Peter was ordered to have $1,700 per month withheld from his wages for

ongoing child support, plus $100 monthly towards the arrears. No motion for

modification was before the court or had ever been previously filed.

Peter filed a notice of appeal in this Court. After the Appellant’s brief

was filed, a motion to strike the brief and to dismiss the appeal was filed by an

Assistant Kenton County Attorney. The motion alleged that the brief filed on

Peter’s behalf failed to comport with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. A motion

panel of this Court passed the motion to the panel assigned to determine the matter

on the merits. Having reviewed the motion to strike and dismiss, we grant the

motion and this appeal is hereby dismissed.

-2- The motion alleged that the brief does not conform to RAP 32(A)(3)1

in that the statement of the case does not provide an adequate summary of the

procedural events of the matter before the Court and does not provide ample

citations to the record for any factual allegations contained in the statement of the

case. It is also alleged that the brief fails to cite where in the record preservation of

the issues raised in the brief could be found, pursuant to RAP 32(A)(4).2

We agree that the statement of the case contained in the brief is not

sufficient in that it does not provide a procedural and factual timeline of the facts

of the case, nor does it provide sufficient citations to the record for any fleeting

factual or procedural inclusions. Instead of providing this Court with an overview

of the facts of the case and the procedural history of the matter, Peter’s brief

engages in argument and slings baseless allegations of malfeasance and sexism

against an Assistant County Attorney charged with representing the office in

matters concerning child support enforcement. The only citations provided

correspond to statements of the trial judge, and none of the citations corresponds to

any of the evidence adduced at the hearing. Peter, appearing pro se, failed to

1 The motion cited the former rule, Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 76.12(4)(c). The new Rules of Appellate Procedure went into effect on January 1, 2023, after the motion was filed, but before the issuance of this Opinion. The new Rules of Appellate Procedure will be cited herein. 2 The former CR 76.12(4)(c)(v).

-3- present any evidence whatsoever at the hearing and all evidence presented was,

therefore, against his interests.

We agree that the brief also fails to provide preservation citations to

assist this Court in determining where Peter lodged objections below to the entry of

evidence that he now complains about in his brief. Peter argues in the brief that the

spreadsheets his former wife created and referred to during her testimony were not

proper evidence and complains that they were not authenticated or entered in

evidence but provides no citations to these objections made to the trial court. Quite

simply, upon reviewing the hearing, Peter did not make such objections at the

hearing, and should have admitted to such in the brief and asked for palpable error

review in the face of failure to object. Frankly, the dishonesty in alleging

preservation is troubling.

Peter also raises arguments not contained within the mandatory

prehearing statement. The only issue contained in the prehearing statement,

required now by RAP 22, was “PETITIONER WAS PRESENT FOR HEARING

APPEARING PRO SE AND DOES NOT BELIEVE HE RECEIVED

CREDIT FOR ALL CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MADE TO OR ON

BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN TO THE RESPONDENT (APPELLEE).”

RAP 22(C)(1)(h), the former CR 76.03(4)(h). We will not entertain issues not

appearing in the required prehearing statement.

-4- CR 76.03(4)(h) provides that within twenty days of filing a notice of appeal, an appellant must file a prehearing statement setting out a “brief statement of the facts and issues proposed to be raised on appeal, including jurisdictional challenges[.]” CR 76.03(8) specifically provides that a “party shall be limited on appeal to issues in the prehearing statement except that when good cause is shown the appellate court may permit additional issues to be submitted upon timely motion.”

...

Since [this] issue was not raised either in the prehearing statement or by timely motion seeking permission to submit the issue for “good cause shown,” CR 76.03(8),[3] this matter is not properly before this court for review.

Sallee v. Sallee, 142 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Ky. App. 2004).

Having found that the brief is non-conforming as to the only issue

listed in the required prehearing statement, and that the failure to include the other

issues appearing in the brief in the prehearing statement precludes our review of

those issues, we strike the brief.

[F]ailing to comply with the appellate rules “is ground for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, which may include: (a) A dismissal of the appeal . . ., (b) Striking of . . . briefs, . . . (c) Imposition of fines on counsel for failing to comply with these rules of not more than $500, and (d) Such further remedies as are specified in any applicable Rule.” CR 73.02(2).

3 RAP 22(C)(2): “A party shall be limited on appeal to issues identified in the prehearing statement, except that upon a timely motion demonstrating good cause, the Court of Appeals may permit additional issues to be raised.”

-5- We expect a greater degree of competency from appellate advocates than has been shown in this case. As we have said too often, rules of appellate procedure exist for a reason. They are not mere decorations but “lights and buoys to mark the channels of safe passage and assure an expeditious voyage to the right destination. Their importance simply cannot be disdained or denigrated.” Martin v. Wallace, 651 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Ky. Aug. 18, 2022) (quoting Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010) (quoting Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist. v. Bischoff, 248 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Ky. 1977)))).

Hamburger v. Plemmons, 654 S.W.3d 99, 102 (Ky. App. 2022).

Although the standards governing appellate briefs are now found in

the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure, and not the Rules of Civil Procedure

referred to in the motion, the basic underpinnings of the rules have not changed.

The basic standards requiring preservation statements and ample citations to the

record have not been meaningfully changed. Appellant’s brief repeatedly fails to

meet those baseline standards. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we exercise our

discretion and order the Appellant’s brief to be stricken. Consequently, this appeal

is DISMISSED.

ALL CONCUR.

07/28/2023 ENTERED: _____________ ____________________________ JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS

-6- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.

Darrell Cox Covington, Kentucky

-7-