B.A. v. Ready, WD 83895

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
• Citation: 634 S.W.3d 653
• Parties: B.A., Respondent, v. Douglas READY, Appellant.
• Docket Number: WD 83895
• Decision Date: 23 February 2021

634 S.W.3d 653

B.A., Respondent,
v.
Douglas READY, Appellant.

WD 83895

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: February 23, 2021
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied March 30, 2021
Application for Transfer Denied June 29, 2021

Kristen H. Dickinson, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Respondent.

Douglas Ready, Vienna, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge

Mr. Douglas Ready ("Husband") appeals pro se from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Callaway County, Missouri ("trial court"), awarding attorney's fees to B.A.¹ ("Wife") for Wife's appellate attorney's fees relating to Husband's previous appeal to this Court regarding Husband's appeal of a dissolution judgment between the parties, B.N.A. (formerly B.N.R.) v. Ready , 614 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (appeal dismissed for briefing deficiencies) ("Dissolution Appeal"). Due to numerous appellate briefing deficiencies in his present

634 S.W.3d 655

appeal, Husband's initial appellant's brief was stricken by Order of this Court dated October 2, 2020, and Husband was granted fifteen days to file an amended brief correcting the Rule 84.04 violations.² Husband filed an amended appellant's brief but failed to correct his briefing deficiencies; we, therefore, dismiss his appeal.

Procedural Background

The factual and procedural history relating to the parties’ marriage and subsequent dissolution proceedings is detailed in the Dissolution Appeal and we need not repeat it here for our purposes, with the exception of footnote 3 from the Dissolution Appeal opinion, which describes the background of the present appeal:

[Husband] filed his notice of appeal on December 30, 2019. Subsequently, [Wife] petitioned the Trial Court for attorney fees stemming from this appeal pursuant to section 452.355. In Goins v. Goins , 406 S.W.3d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 2013), the Court held that the award of attorney fees on appeal is not an amendment of the dissolution judgment or entry of a new dissolution judgment[;] instead it relates to the collateral matter of a party's right to pursue a statutorily authorized award of attorney fees pursuant to section 452.355. " ‘[T]he circuit court, and only the circuit court, has jurisdiction to consider and grant an award of attorney fees pursuant to section 452.355.’ " Id. (quoting Clarke v. Clarke , 983 S.W.2d 192, 195 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ). The Trial Court ordered [Husband] to pay [Wife] $7,000.00 for her anticipated attorney fees. On June 18, 2020, [Husband] filed an "Amended Motion to Reconsider or Overturn/Set Aside Attorney Fees" in this Court, but because the Trial Court's judgment is a separate and distinct judgment subject to appeal, we deny [Husband's] motion. [Husband] has filed a notice of appeal stemming from the judgment, which has been docketed as WD83895.

Id. at 16 n.3. This appeal from the award of attorney's fees ensues.

Motion to Dismiss

On October 2, 2020, this Court issued an Order striking Husband's appellant's brief for violations of: Rule 84.04(d) as to Husband's points relied on; Rule 84.04(d)(5) as to Husband's failure to include a listing of cases or other authority that Husband relied upon; and Rule 84.04(e) as to Husband's failure to include in his argument a concise statement of the applicable standard of review and failure to include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review and, if so, how it was preserved. Husband was given fifteen days to file an amended appellant's brief to address the Rule 84.04 briefing deficiencies and Husband's second effort was no better. Wife responded to Husband's amended appellant's brief by filing a motion seeking to strike Husband's appellate brief and to dismiss the appeal.

While this Court is "mindful of the difficulties that a party appearing pro se encounters in complying with the rules of procedure, we must require pro se appellants to comply with these rules. We must not grant a pro se appellant preferential treatment." Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc. , 211 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). "It is not for lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties." Kuenz v. Walker , 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A party appearing pro se is held to the same standards as a

634 S.W.3d 656

licensed attorney and, as such, his brief must substantially meet the requirements of Rule 84.04. Emig ex rel. Emig v. Curtis , 117 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).

That said, the Missouri Court of Appeals does not play hide-the-ball when it comes to briefing requirements and, instead, provides a detailed primer to all litigants, whether represented or unrepresented, via the public web site found at www.courts.mo.gov. There are three districts of the Missouri Court of Appeals—Western, Eastern, and Southern—and each district has a separate web page within the www.courts.mo.gov web site. At each district's separate web page, there is a detailed primer on appellate practice in the appellate courts. For example, at the Western District, there is a link to a document titled "Quick Guide to Appellate Practice." At the Eastern District, there is a link to a document titled, "The ABC's of Appellate Practice." Similarly, the Southern...