Bank v. American Family, ED 90742.

Citation277 S.W.3d 749
Decision Date23 December 2008
Docket NumberNo. ED 90742.,ED 90742.
PartiesFIRST STATE BANK OF ST. CHARLES, Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and McBaine Solutions, Inc., Defendants, and George W. Carlisle, Jr., Defendant/Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

George Carlisle, Jr., St. Peters, pro se.

David W. White, Jacqueline M. Sexton, Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper & Hofer, P.C., Kansas City, and Gregory Herkert, The Herkert Law Firm, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Respondent First Bank of St. Charles.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge.

Introduction

George W. Carlisle, Jr., (Carlisle) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered on October 5, 2007, following a bench trial on an interpleader petition filed by First State Bank of St. Charles (Bank) against American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) and Carlisle, awarding Bank $18,911.45 in insurance proceeds paid by American Family, and ruling in favor of Bank on Carlisle's counterclaim alleging breach of contract. On appeal, Carlisle argues that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to grant Carlisle's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; (2) conducting a bench trial; (3) failing to grant Carlisle a permanent injunction; (4) failing to grant Carlisle's Motion to Disburse Funds; and (5) denying Carlisle's counterclaim for breach of contract. We dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 84.04.

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a fire at Carlisle's home and his subsequent insurance claim with American Family, Bank filed an interpleader action seeking the award of insurance proceeds paid by American Family. Carlisle filed a counterclaim alleging various causes of action, of which only Count III for breach of contract remained at the time of trial. Carlisle appeared for the bench trial, which resulted in a favorable order and judgment for Bank on both its interpleader petition and Carlisle's counterclaim. The trial court ordered the insurance proceeds that had been paid into the registry of the court to be disbursed to Bank, denied Carlisle's claim on Count III of his Second Amended Counterclaim, and ordered that the temporary retraining order entered on February 1, 2007, be dissolved pursuant to Bank's Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. Carlisle file this appeal pro se. The Notice of Appeal filed by Carlisle states that Carlisle is appealing from the judgment entered in this action October 5, 2007.

Bank filed a Motion to Strike Carlisle's brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04, which was taken with the case. For reasons set forth below, we grant Bank's Motion to Strike and dismiss Carlisle's appeal for non-compliance with Rule 84.04.1 We also dismiss portions of Carlisle's appeal pursuant to Rule 81.08(a).

Discussion
Points I and IV

Carlisle's first Point Relied On asserts that the trial court erred in its December 18, 2006 ruling on Carlisle's Motion to Dismiss. Carlisle did not include in his Legal File a copy of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. In his fourth Point Relied On, Carlisle claims the trial court erred in its rulings on his Request for Order of Disbursement, which was initially granted on November 27, 2006, and later set aside by the trial court's order of December 18, 2006. Carlisle did not include in his Legal File a copy of the Request for Order of Disbursement or the trial court's order of November 27, 2006. Fatal to his first and fourth Points Relied On is Carlisle's failure to include with the Legal File a copy of the pleadings at issue in these points as required by Rule 81.12(a).

For the reasons set forth above, Points 1 and 4 of Carlisle's Points Relied On are dismissed.

Deficiencies in Carlisle's Brief

Before considering the merits of the remaining points, we address the deficiencies in Carlisle's brief. Rule 84.04 governs the contents of all briefs filed in this Court. According to Rule 84.04(a), an appellant's brief must contain: 1) a detailed table of contents, a table of cases and other authorities cited, all with page references; 2) a concise jurisdictional statement; 3) a statement of the facts; 4) the points relied on; 5) an argument that substantially follows the order of the points relied on; and 6) a brief conclusion that states the precise relief sought. The jurisdictional statement should set forth sufficient factual data to show the applicability of the particular provision(s) of Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution whereon jurisdiction is sought to be predicated. Rule 84.04(b). The statement of facts must be a concise and fair statement of the facts that are relevant to the questions to be determined, but should not be argumentative. Rule 84.04(c). All statements of fact and argument must have specific page references to the record on appeal. Rule 84.04(i). Each claim of error must be denominated as a "Point Relied On" and identify the trial court's ruling or action that the appellant challenges, must state concisely the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, and must explain summarily why, in the context of the case, the stated legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Rule 84.04(d)(1). A point relied on must be restated at the beginning of the section of the argument discussing that point, and the argument must include a concise statement, of the applicable standard of review for each claim of error, and must advise the appellate court of how the facts of the case and the legal principles interact. Rule 84.04(e); Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Mo.App. E.D.2002).

This Court insists upon compliance with Rule 84.04. Without such compliance, we would be forced to speculate on the facts and arguments not asserted. By doing so, this Court would be advocating for the non-compliant party, which we cannot and will not do. Prosser v. State, 243 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). This court should not be expected either to decide the case on the basis of inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and a search of the record to cure the deficiency. Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978).

Carlisle appears before this Court pro se. Although Carlisle is not represented by legal counsel, pro se appellants are held to the same standards as are attorneys. Prosser, 243 S.W.3d at 497. A pro se appellant must comply with the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets forth the requirements for appellate briefs. Schaefer v. Altman, 250 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An appellant's failure to comply with the rules and requirements set forth in Rule 84.04 constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See id. While we are mindful of the problems faced by pro se litigants, this Court cannot relax the standards for non-attorneys. Id. (citing Ponzar v. Whitmoor Country Club, 114 S.W.3d 336, 337 (Mo.App. E.D.2003)). Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties require that this Court does not grant pro se appellants preferential treatment regarding their compliance with procedural rules. Kramer v. Park-Et Rest., Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 869 (Mo.App. E.D.2007).

Carlisle's Statement of Facts is substantially inadequate and presents few if any facts for our consideration when reviewing each of Carlisle's points on appeal. The Statement of Facts appears to be a recitation of allegations contained in an affidavit filed with a pleading in the trial court. The Statement of Facts consists solely of legal conclusions, allegations, and argument, and does not provide facts pertinent to the issues raised by this appeal. The Statement of Facts is devoid of citations to the record on appeal, and contains...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Rayman v. Abbott Ambulance, Inc., ED 105126
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 2018
    ...... Arbors at Sugar Creek Homeowners Ass'n v. Jefferson Bank & Trust Co. , 464 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Mo. banc 2015) ; ITT Commercial Fin. ...W.D. 2011) ; see also First State Bank of St. Charles v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 277 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (stating that ......
  • Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pyle, SD34133
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 28, 2017
    ......Charles v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 277 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). An appellant's brief must set forth the ......
  • Avalos v. State, 01-18-00329-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 31, 2019
    ...Avalos's actions, failure to seek medical care, and failure to provide nourishment. See Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d at 544; Villanueva, 277 S.W.3d at 749. Avalos argues that the indictments listing the same on-or-about date demonstrate that her conduct was part of one continuous course of c......
  • State v. Remster, SD 35317
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 19, 2019
    ...State v. Vitabile , 553 S.W.3d 429, 431 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (quoting First State Bank of St. Charles v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 277 S.W.3d 749, 752 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). Our conclusion is the same as in Pollard : "[t]he time restriction, under the circumstances described, was not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT