CAREY JAMES DYE,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v
.
Guilford County
No. 86 CVD 8875
REBECCA B. DYE,
Defendant/Appellant.
Rebecca B. Dye, pro se, for defendant/appellant.
John B. Hatfield, Jr., for plaintiff/appellee.
Ernest J. Wright, amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
In 1986, Carey James Dye (plaintiff) filed for custody of and
visitation with the two children he and Rebecca B. Dye (defendant)
had together. Defendant was ordered to pay child support.
Defendant did not consistently pay support, and by 17 November 2003
she owed $19,721.25. On 25 November 2003, Judge Frederick B.
Wilkins, Jr. entered an order finding that the court had
jurisdiction, that defendant's arrears were $19,721.25, and
reducing the arrears to a civil judgment, with interest, in
plaintiff's favor. An appeal bond was set at $19,721.25, and
defendant was ordered to serve thirty days in jail for criminalcontempt of the court's order. Defendant did not serve this
sentence.
On 1 December 2003, defendant appealed the 25 November 2003
order and posted the appeal bond. On 13 May 2004, this Court
entered an order dismissing defendant's appeal.
On 6 September 2005, defendant filed a motion in district
court requesting the return of her appeal bond. On 24 October
2005, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the appeal bond be
released to him to satisfy the 25 November 2003 judgment and that
defendant be incarcerated for thirty days. On 21 February 2006,
Judge H. Thomas Jarrell entered an order authorizing the clerk to
release the appeal bond to plaintiff. In the same order, Judge
Jarrell ordered that the payment satisfied the civil judgment
against defendant and that defendant was therefore excused from
serving the thirty day sentence. It is from this order that
defendant appeals.
We note preliminarily that defendant has committed various and
substantial violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure,
including but not limited to the following: (1) defendant's record
on appeal was paginated sporadically, when at all, and in no
particular order, in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 9(b)(4) (2007);
(2) defendant's assignments of error were not concise, and were
extensively argumentative, in violation of N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1)
(2007); (3) defendant's statement of the facts in her brief was
argumentative and at times incomprehensible, in violation of N.C.R.
App. P. 28(b)(5) (2007); and (4) defendant failed to organize herbrief in any coherent manner: there was no separate argument
section, no separate statement of each question presented with a
reference to assignments of error and the appropriate standard of
review, nor were there even paragraphs, all in violation of N.C.R.
App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007). As this Court has stated, the Rules of
Appellate Procedure “apply to everyone -- whether acting pro se or
being represented by all of the five largest law firms in the
state.” Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124, 125, 519
S.E.2d 316, 317 (1999). Accordingly, as a result of gross rules
violations, this case must be dismissed.
Moreover, we note that even were we to consider this case on
the merits, defendant's claim is controlled by this Court's
decision in Barrett v. Barrett, 122 N.C. App. 185, 468 S.E.2d 264
(1996). In Barrett, we held that “[t]he primary purpose of a bond
is to provide a source of funds to be applied to the satisfaction
of a valid judgment.” Id., 122 N.C. App. at 187, 468 S.E.2d at
266. The 21 February 2006 order puts the bond at issue to its
proper purpose, namely, satisfaction of the judgment against
defendant. Defendant's appeal is therefore entirely without merit.
Dismissed.
Panel consisting of:
Judges MCGEE, BRYANT, and ELMORE.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***