DocketNumber: No. 20110657-CA
Citation Numbers: 266 P.3d 201, 2011 UT App 404
Judges: Christiansen, Davis, Mehugh
Filed Date: 12/1/2011
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/2/2022
DECISION
1 Mary F. Reese (Wife) appeals the trial court's order granting Martin Reese's petition to modify their divorcee decree. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. We affirm.
T2 To pursue an appeal, an appellant "must allege the [trial] court committed an error that the appellate court should correct." Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 7, 194 P.3d 903. "If an appellant fails to allege specific errors of the [trial] court, the appellate court will not seek out errors in the [trial] court's decision." Id. Here, Wife has failed to state a specific issue alleging trial court error in granting the petition to modify.
13 Instead, Wife presents various facts and arguments that are largely irrelevant to the petition to modify and seeks relief that
¶ 4 Affirmed.
. Wife also includes various documents in her addenda that do not appear to be in the record on appeal. This court is limited to reviewing the record as provided in rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R.App. P. 11.
. Wife has filed a motion to dismiss summary disposition, which is denied as moot.