Arenson v. Arenson, 57164
| Decision Date | 03 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 57164,57164 |
| Citation | 787 S.W.2d 845 |
| Parties | Sharon ARENSON, Respondent, v. Edward ARENSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Edward Arenson, St. Louis, pro se.
Sharon Arenson, Germantown, Tenn., pro se.
Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04.
After an approximately ten year marriage, which produced no children, wife filed a petition for dissolution. The decree was entered on July 6, 1989. Husband then filed this appeal. Upon appeal, both parties represent themselves pro se.
When a party represents itself pro se, the party must still satisfy all the relevant rules of procedure and this court cannot hold a pro se party to a lower standard of performance. Snelling v. Stephenson, 747 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Mo.App.1988). One of the rules which an appellant must satisfy is Rule 84.04, concerning the contents of appellate briefs. Appellant in this case has completely failed to meet the requirements of this rule. The brief contains no discernible jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, or point relied on. Rule 84.04(a). The appeal is dismissed because of these deficiencies.
Despite procedural defects, this court may consider an appeal ex gratia to prevent manifest injustice, Ferrara v. Wells, 728 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Mo.App.1987), but such review is not appropriate here. Appellant's brief fails to identify wherein and why the lower court erred; it merely points out the end results with which appellant disagrees. Examination of the case would require this court to scour the record on appeal to identify possible errors then research any issue so revealed. That is the duty of the parties, not the function of an appellate court. Draper v. Aronowitz, 695 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo.App.1985).
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Buehner and Buehner
...pro se litigant is not allowed a lower standard of performance. Corley v. Jacobs, 820 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Mo.App.1991); Arenson v. Arenson, 787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1990). That is particularly apropos here in view of Plaintiff's experience in litigation. See: Cain v. State Board of Podiatry......
-
Stroup v. Facet Automotive Filter Co.
...and is generally not appropriate when an appellant fails to identify wherein and why the trial court erred. Arenson v. Arenson, 787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.E.D.1990). In the instant case, Employee filed a reply brief but did not respond to Employer's contention that his points relied on wer......
-
Roberts v. Johnson
...cannot allow a pro se litigant a lower standard of performance. Corley v. Jacobs, 820 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Mo.App.1991); Arenson v. Arenson, 787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1990). Ex gratia review for plain error per Rule 84.13(c) reveals no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. This is not......
-
Wilson v. Carnahan
...not the function of an appellate court.'" Nell v. Fern-Thatcher Co., 952 S.W.2d 749, 755 (Mo. App. 1997) (quoting Arenson v. Arenson, 787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo. App. 1990)). Because the appellant's point relied on preserves nothing for appellate review, we decline to address it. Hall, 10 S.W.......