Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 678 P.2d 525,139 Ariz. 340 |
| Parties | D. Lavoy ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, a national banking association; and Larry Haldane, Defendants-Appellees. 6931. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
In Price v. Price, 134 Ariz. 112, 654 P.2d 46 (App.1982), we held that a frivolous appeal is one wholly without merit or brought for an improper motive. We consider this appeal to be wholly without merit and because appellant's opening brief does not conform with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (Rule), we impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 25. Cf. Auman v. Auman, 134 Ariz. 40, 653 P.2d 688 (1982).
Appellee Valley National Bank of Arizona (Bank) disbursed approximately $200,000 pursuant to a loan commitment executed by appellant D. Lavoy Adams. The funds were advanced to the payee for the purchase of cattle but apparently only some of the cattle were delivered to Adams. The disbursement was made at the request of Harold Hogle who was acting pursuant to a general power of attorney executed by Adams. The loan commitment, signed by Adams also authorized the disbursement of funds at the "oral or written request" of Hogle. Adams brought suit against the Bank alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. A jury found in favor of the Bank and following the denial of Adams' motion for new trial and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Adams brought this appeal.
The opening brief lists nine issues presented. The section of the opening brief entitled "Argument" fails completely to relate the argument to any of the issues presented. Our rules of civil appellate procedure require that the "argument" section of the brief "shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented." Rule 13(a)(6).
The only argument presented with any degree of clarity in the opening brief is the contention that the power of attorney was invalid because it was not notarized (none of the "issues" refers to the power of attorney argument). Yet, Adams provides us with no authority in support of the contention that the lack of acknowledgment invalidates the power of attorney. Despite our own efforts, we have not been able to find any such authority. Indeed, the contrary is true. Absent a statutory requirement, a power of attorney need not be acknowledged. 1 Am.Jur.2d Acknowledgements § 5 at 450 (1962); 3 Am.Jur.2d Agency § 26 at 435 (1962). No Arizona statute requires that a power of attorney be acknowledged.
In order to understand our frustration with this case, further elaboration is necessary. Adams raises as an issue whether the court erred in not allowing Exhibit 13 in evidence. But the only argument made with regard to Exhibit 13 is the statement that the "jury was not allowed to see Exhibit 13 which was the Appellant's response regarding his not making the payment." Other issues include the alleged error by the trial court in not giving Adams' proposed jury instructions 3, 4, 6 and 8. The only reference in Adams' argument to the failure to give jury instructions is as follows:
The Court also refused Appellant's Instructions 4, 6 and 8 which show the seriousness of the false acknowledgement by the Appellees. This, coupled with the failure of the Court to grant the Appellant's Instructions 4 and 7, which show the duty of the Appellee in dealing with a Power of Attorney, confused the jury.
Although the failure to give Adams' jury instruction 3 is raised as an issue, the argument section is completely devoid of any reference to instruction 3. It appears to us that Adams has attempted to "simply throw the whole case 'into our laps' on the theory that somewhere therein is something, which made the final result in some way erroneous." In re Hesse's Estate, 65 Ariz. 169, 171, 177 P.2d 217, 218 (1947).
Based upon the totally deficient briefs 1 filed on behalf of appellant, we have little choice but to dismiss this appeal. We recognize that courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds. Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414, 420 P.2d 284, 285 (1966). However, there is a limit to which judicial leniency can be stretched. Although the sanction of dismissal may seem harsh in the context of a particular case, it will have a prophylactic effect in the long run. By enforcing the minimal standards of advocacy set forth in the rules of civil appellate procedure, we necessarily elevate the level of appellate practice to a higher plane. If we ignore a failure to comply with these elementary rules and tolerate unprofessional standards, it will be the clients, the public, the bar and the courts which ultimately suffer. 2
In a typical case when the court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Mgmt., Inc.
...pursuant to Rule 403. Thus, we find the argument insufficient for our consideration on appeal. See Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 343, 678 P.2d 525, 528 (App.1984) (appellate court cannot assume duty of advocate and search voluminous records to support argument on appea......
-
State v. Anaya
...Anaya's previous objection was a continuing objection. Because we prefer to address cases on their merits, cf. Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1984), we assume the court's continuing-objection clarification applied to the first five admitted photographs, and we......
-
Magic Ranch Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Huffman
...erred in their denial of his motions, we deem it implied by his argument and review the matter as such.5 See Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank ofAriz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1984) ("We recognize that courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedura......
-
Delong v. Merrill
...Nydam, 181 Ariz. at 101, 887 P.2d at 631 (confession of reversible error doctrine discretionary); Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342, 678 P.2d 525, 527 (App.1984) (courts prefer to decide cases on their merits). ¶ 10 Rule 36(a), Ariz. R. Civ. P., states that a matter th......