- [Appellant] asks us to review both appealable and nonappealable issues, without even a nod toward the standards of review.
- Although [Appellant] has ignored the standards of appellate review for trial court orders, we cannot.
- [Appellant] initially identified nine issues on appeal, some of which are not candidates for review. And not all of these issues were accompanied later by argument and citation to authority. We do not address those that fell by the wayside.
- We cannot review something that did not happen.
- As we stated at the beginning of this opinion, we cannot review something that did not happen.
- Much as we hate to keep repeating it, we cannot review something that did not happen. If you’re going to ask “what about him?” you must first ask the trial court.
- “[W]here a party bases an appeal on an argument that has been rejected and sanctioned in another trial court and affirmed on appeal, the principle of ‘once burned, twice shy’ applies. That is the case here.”
- Several of [Appellant’s] arguments are based on blatant misrepresentations of the record.
- These examples are by no means the only misrepresentations of the record included in [Appellant's] briefs. As we have noted throughout this opinion, inaccuracy is the hallmark of [Appellant's] briefing.
- As the court observed, [Appellant] is herself an experienced attorney. She was heavily involved in the postjudgment litigation and was present for several of the hearings. We conclude this appeal could not have gone forward without her knowledge and acquiescence, if not her urging. We therefore think it appropriate to impose sanctions on her as well as on her counsel.
The upshot? Sanctions of $5K imposed jointly and severally between counsel and appellant payable to the respondent, plus another $5K payable to the court.
Posts
