Background
James and Tamara Massey appealed two trial court judgments: a foreclosure ruling in favor of Wilmington Savings Fund Society entered January 16, 2025, and an order dismissing their separate lawsuit entered February 3, 2025. The underlying disputes involved mortgage and HELOC claims. The Masseys proceeded pro se, though Mr. Massey is a licensed attorney admitted to practice in multiple jurisdictions including Colorado and Illinois.
Rather than addressing the merits or Wilmington’s res judicata defense, the appellate court focused on the Masseys’ compliance with the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP). Both opening briefs failed to cite the record, lacked proper statements of points and authorities, and contained no citations showing how issues were preserved for trial court review—all violations of RAP 32(A).
Beyond procedural defects, the briefs contained extensive inflammatory language and unfounded accusations. The Masseys alleged fraud, violations of judicial conduct rules, and racial discrimination without evidentiary support. They characterized opposing parties as “swindle-minded,” “dishonest, unscrupulous, and fraudulent,” and accused trial judges of rendering “void judgments” based on “foundational lies” and accused a trial court of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and “fraud upon the court.”
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits and instead sanctioned the Masseys by striking their briefs and dismissing both appeals under RAP 10(B) for substantial noncompliance with appellate procedure rules. The court emphasized that pro se litigants, even those with legal training, are not exempt from complying with procedural rules or facing sanctions for violation.
The court highlighted particularly egregious unsupported claims, including a baseless argument that Kentucky’s 1866 anti-miscegenation laws—which remain on the books—demonstrated racial discrimination by the trial judge. The Masseys offered no factual basis for any racial discrimination claim. Similarly, accusations that Wilmington’s brief was “AI generated appearing” were made without citing any specific portion of the opposing brief.
The court noted it had previously admonished the Masseys in an October 2025 order for similar inflammatory language in a RAP 21 motion, warning that future similar accusations might result in sanctions. The trial court’s foreclosure judgment and the order dismissing the Masseys’ separate lawsuit were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigants—including licensed attorneys—must comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure or face dismissal and sanctions, with no special exemptions for lack of formal legal training.
- Opening briefs must contain citations to the record, proper statements of points and authorities, and argument sections showing how issues were preserved for trial review; failure to do so is grounds for striking the brief and dismissing the appeal.
- Inflammatory accusations against courts, judges, and opposing parties without factual support constitute sanctionable conduct under RAP 11 and CR 11.
- Courts will dismiss appeals without reaching the merits when procedural noncompliance is substantial and clear.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores how strictly appellate courts enforce procedural rules and how serious the consequences can be for noncompliance. Even when an appellant is a licensed attorney, proceeding pro se does not exempt them from procedural requirements or sanctions. The court’s willingness to strike entire briefs and dismiss appeals without addressing substantive arguments sends a clear message that procedural compliance is non-negotiable and that inflammatory rhetoric directed at courts and opposing parties will not be tolerated.
The decision also illustrates appellate courts’ approach to frivolous and unfounded allegations. The Masseys’ accusations of racial discrimination, fraud, and judicial misconduct—entirely unsupported by the record and lacking specific factual allegations—exemplify the type of sanctionable conduct that can result in appellate dismissal. For practitioners, the case serves as a cautionary example of how poor appellate brief drafting, combined with unfounded accusations, can result in complete loss of appellate review regardless of the underlying merits.