Fichter v. Byrd CA2/4
Respondents Vin A. Fichter and his firm, The Law Office of Vin A. Fichter, obtained a judgment against appellant Tyrone Byrd for attorney fees owed by appellant to respondents. Appellant, acting in pro. per., seeks reversal of the judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of substantial evidence to support it. However, appellant did not supply a reporter’s transcript or any equivalent. Accordingly, we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence. We do address other grounds for reversal raised by appellant and conclude his due process rights were not violated, Fichter did not violate procedure or defraud the court by including the law office as a separate party, and the trial court did not err in refusing to impose terminating sanctions on respondents for failing to comply with the final status conference order. We agree with appellant, however, that costs were added to the judgment prematurely and without authority. Accordingly, we strike the costs, but otherwise affirm.
Comments on Fichter v. Byrd CA2/4