Opinion
No. 346314
03-14-2019
NEHYA AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX MOSLIMANI, Defendant-Appellant.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 08-113666-DM Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and SWARTZLE and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right an order denying his motions requesting a change of custody or a modification of parenting time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
Defendant's argument on appeal is cursory and incoherent, consisting of assertions that the trial court's custody ruling constituted an abuse of discretion and misapplication of the law. Defendant does not further explain how he believes that the trial court erred. He does not point to any specific factual findings by the trial court that he believes were erroneous, nor does he provide any cogent argument to develop his assertion that the trial court committed a legal error.
"An appellant may not merely announce a position [and] then leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for the appellant's claims; nor may an appellant give an issue only cursory treatment with little or no citation of authority. Further, this Court will not search for authority to sustain or reject a party's position." Cheesman v Williams, 311 Mich App 147, 161; 874 NW2d 385 (2015) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). Although defendant in this case has chosen to represent himself rather than retain legal counsel, an appellant who proceeds in propria persona is still held to the same standards as attorneys. Baird v Baird, 368 Mich 536, 539; 118 NW2d 427 (1962); Totman v Royal Oak Sch Dist, 135 Mich App 121, 126; 352 NW2d 364 (1984). Defendant is thus "bound by the burdens that accompany" his decision to proceed without counsel. Hoven v Hoven, 9 Mich App 168, 174; 156 NW2d 65 (1967). By failing to make any argument tending to show that the trial court committed any errors, defendant has not given this Court any grounds on which we could grant him any relief. See Derderian v Genesys Health Care Sys, 263 Mich App 364, 381; 689 NW2d 145 (2004) ("When an appellant fails to dispute the basis of the trial court's ruling, this Court need not even consider granting [the appellant] the relief [he] seek[s].") (quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis, and citation omitted). We therefore conclude that defendant has abandoned his appellate challenge. AK Steel Holding Corp v Dep't of Treasury, 314 Mich App 453, 475 n 10; 887 NW2d 209 (2016) (stating that the failure on appeal to address the basis of the lower court's decision constitutes abandonment of the issue).
Our review of the record in this matter also has not revealed any basis on which defendant is entitled to any appellate relief.
Moreover, in a child custody dispute, "all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue." MCL 722.28; see also Lieberman v Orr, 319 Mich App 68, 76-77; 900 NW2d 130 (2017); Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 20-21; 805 NW2d 1 (2010). Defendant in this case has not demonstrated that the trial court made findings of fact that were against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or made a clear legal error on a major issue. We must also affirm the trial court's ruling on this basis. MCL 722.28.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron