Hall v. Chaves

• Decision Date: 24 February 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 47988
• Parties: CELESTE HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ANTHONY CHAVES, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

CELESTE HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ANTHONY CHAVES, Respondent.

Docket No. 47988

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

February 24, 2021

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Gerald F. Schroeder, District Judge. Hon. Laurie A. Fortier, Magistrate.

Decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate division, affirming judgment for five counts of contempt, affirmed; decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate division, affirming judgment awarding costs and attorney fees, affirmed.

Anthony Geddes, Ada County Public Defender; Karen L. Jennings, Deputy Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Erika K. Klein of Cosho Humphrey, LLP, Boise, for respondent.

____________________

LORELLO, Judge

Celeste Hall appeals from a decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate division, affirming a judgment for five counts of contempt and the decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate division, affirming a judgment awarding costs and attorney fees. We affirm.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Hall and Anthony Chaves are the parents of a minor child. For the first decade of the child's life, several court judgments and parenting coordinator decisions governed the child's custody, visitation, and support. In 2019, Chaves filed a motion for contempt and a supporting declaration, alleging five counts of contempt against Hall for the willful violation of various provisions of the judgments and parenting coordinator decisions. During her arraignment, Hall made an oral motion to dismiss the motion for contempt, arguing that the motion failed to provide adequate notice of how she had committed contempt of court. The magistrate court denied Hall's motion, concluding that Chaves's declaration contained sufficiently specific allegations to provide constitutionally adequate notice.

The contempt action proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, the magistrate court sustained multiple foundational and hearsay objections by Chaves to Hall's attempts to testify about statements by Chaves's wife and interactions between the child and Chaves's stepson. Ultimately, the magistrate court found Hall guilty of all five counts of contempt; sentenced Hall to suspended jail time and probation; and awarded Chaves costs and attorney fees, including fees Chaves incurred preparing for Hall's initial sentencing, which was continued at her request.

On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate court's judgment of contempt, concluding that Hall waived all the issues she attempted to raise on appeal by failing to support them with cogent argument or relevant legal authority. Alternatively, the district court held that the magistrate court did not err in denying Hall's motion to dismiss, precluding her from testifying about her "mindset and motives" behind her allegedly contemptuous conduct, and awarding costs and attorney fees to Chaves. The district court also awarded Chaves costs and attorney fees on appeal, concluding that her intermediate appeal was frivolous. Hall again appeals.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate division, we review the magistrate court record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's findings of fact and whether the magistrate court's conclusions of law follow from those findings. State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480, 482 (2009). However, as a matter of appellate procedure, our disposition of the appeal will affirm or reverse the decision of the district court. State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965, 968, 318 P.3d 955, 958 (Ct. App. 2014). Thus, we review the magistrate court's findings andconclusions, whether the district court affirmed or reversed the magistrate court and the basis therefor, and either affirm or reverse the district court.

III.ANALYSIS

Hall argues that the magistrate court erred in denying her motion to dismiss, precluding her from testifying about her "mindset and motives," and awarding costs and attorney fees to Chaves. Additionally, Hall asserts that the district court erred by concluding her intermediate appeal was frivolous and awarding Chaves costs and attorney fees for the intermediate appeal. Chaves responds that Hall failed to challenge all the district court's bases for affirming the magistrate court, that she failed to present cogent argument or legal authority to support her issues on appeal, and that her issues on appeal fail on the merits. We hold that Hall has failed to show error in regard to any of her claims.

A. Waiver of Issues

Before reaching Hall's substantive arguments, we first address a procedural issue. On review of a district court's decision as an intermediate appellate court, the appellant's opening brief must generally provide a statement of issues, standard of review, and argument and authority related to both the district court's and the magistrate court's decisions. See I.A.R. 35(a)(4); I.A.R. 35(a)(6); Korn, 148 Idaho at 415, 224 P.3d at 482; Trusdall, 155 Idaho at 968, 318 P.3d at 958. Failure to identify the issue as error by the district court (rather than the magistrate court), include or apply the correct standard of review, or provide argument and authority relevant to the correct standard of review and claim on review may result in a waiver of the claims on appeal.

Although Hall's statement of issues (which I.A.R. 35(a)(4) requires) alleges only errors by the district court, the body of Hall's appellate brief is largely dedicated to arguments that the magistrate court erred. With the exception of arguments that the district court erred by finding Hall's intermediate appeal frivolous in order to award Chaves costs and attorney fees on appeal, Hall's appellate brief does not present argument, citation to the record, or authority related to the district court's decision. This is problematic because the district court did not rest its decision on intermediate appeal entirely on the same grounds as the magistrate court. Specifically, before analyzing the substantive issues Hall attempted to raise on intermediate appeal and concludingthey were meritless, the district court held that Hall waived all the issues she attempted to raise by failing to support them with cogent argument or relevant legal authority.

Hall does not challenge the district court's conclusion that she waived the issues presented in her intermediate appeal. With the exception of arguments that the district court erred in finding her intermediate appeal frivolous and awarding Chaves costs and attorney fees for the intermediate appeal, the issues Hall raises in this appeal are identical to those she waived on intermediate appeal. Consequently, Hall has not preserved these issues for appeal to this Court. See Charney v. Charney, 159 Idaho 62, 68, 356 P.3d 355, 361 (2015) (noting that on appeal from a decision from an intermediate appellate court, a party cannot raise issues that were not preserved in the intermediate appeal). Accordingly, we need not address Hall's claims that her motion to dismiss was erroneously denied, that she was improperly prevented from testifying regarding "mindset and motives" behind her allegedly contemptuous conduct, and that the magistrate court erred by awarding Chaves costs and attorney fees.

Even if Hall had preserved the issues she attempted to raise on intermediate appeal, we still would not consider their merits because they are not supported by authority or cogent legal argument. Hall argues that the motion for...