Bell v. Bell
Decision Date | 28 June 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 10042,10042 |
Citation | 538 S.W.2d 733 |
Parties | E. P. BELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bobby L. BELL and Genie M. Bell, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
J. A. Appelquist, Springfield, for plaintiff-respondent.
John R. Miller, Lamar, for defendants-appellants.
Before STONE, P.J., and HOGAN and TITUS, JJ.
In March 1973, the then 76-year-old plaintiff sold certain Dade County farmland and a house to defendants, his nephew et uxor. Subsequently a dispute arose as to the quantum of the property sold. The controversy terminated (so it was thought) upon execution of a September 1973 settlement agreement whereby, inter alia, defendants agreed to give plaintiff a lifetime lease to the house and yard. The lease was to terminate before death if plaintiff committed acts which would 'invalidate the insurance (on the house) or increase the rate thereon' or if the house became vacant for a period of 120 days. After giving plaintiff a 'Notice of Termination' in March 1974 because of plaintiff's alleged 'failure to occupy these premises resulting in an increase in the rate of insurance premium,' 1 defendants took possession of the leased property via a lockout in September 1974. It was then that plaintiff commenced the instant action for a declaration of the rights of the parties under the settlement agreement and lease. The Circuit Court of Dade County found, among other things, that Judgment was entered accordingly and defendants appealed.
Defendants' two points relied on are:
Rule 84.04(d), R.A.M.R., mandatorily requires (M & A Electric Power Cooperative v. Nesselrodt, 509 S.W.2d 468, 470(1) (Mo.App.1974)) that the 'points relied on shall state . . . what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous.' The requirements of the rule are applicable to court-tried cases. Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, 12(9) (Mo.App.1970).
Neither point relied on saves anything for appellate review. The first point is a mere abstract statement of what defendants incorrectly assume to be the law under Rule 73.01--3(a)(b), V.A.M.R. Hines v. Sweet, 518 S.W.2d 710, 711(1) (Mo.App.1975). The provisions of Rule 73.01--3(a)(b) are Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32(1, 2) (Mo. banc 1976).
Defendants' second point fares no better than their first. It is impossible to ascertain from reading the second point 'why' defendants claim the court erred in determining that plaintiff had not forfeited the lease. The rule (84.04(d)) requires the points to be specific (Adams v. White, 488 S.W.2d 289, 294(13) (Mo.App.1972)), and does not obligate an appellate court to search the transcript or the argument portion of the appellant's brief to come by 'why' the complained of determination is said to be erroneous. Barber v. M. F. A. Milling Co., 536 S.W.2d 208, 210(4) (Mo.App.1976). But rather than dispatch the appeal at this juncture for flagrant rule violation, we ex gratia and most summarily consider it on its merits.
The evidence disclosed that plaintiff had lived at the leased premises since 1933 and had built the leased...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pickett v. Stockard
...failure to specify wherein and why the trial court was in error. That the requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory, see Bell v. Bell, 538 S.W.2d 733 (Mo.App.1976) and Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App. 1979). Point (1) is further ruled against appellants for the reason that this cou......
-
Plaster v. Standley
...to appellate review of court-tried cases. Simpson v. Island View Sales Corp., 540 S.W.2d 624, 625(1) (Mo.App.1976); Bell v. Bell, 538 S.W.2d 733, 735(2) (Mo.App.1976); Long v. Lincoln, 528 S.W.2d 512, 513(1) (Mo.App.1975). Although it is briefly noted that defendants' initial point complain......
-
State ex rel. Co-op. Ass'n No. 86 of Aurora v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Aurora, Mo., 22076
...error. Kackley v. Burtrum, 947 S.W.2d 461, 465 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Gruhala v. Lacy, 559 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Mo.App.1977); Bell v. Bell, 538 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Mo.App.1976); Barber v. M.F.A. Milling Co., 536 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Mo.App.1976); Cole v. Cole, 516 S.W.2d 518, 520 Applying the cases ci......
-
Tudor v. Tudor
...this appeal. The third point relied on, supra, is penned in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d). Bell v. Bell, 538 S.W.2d 733, 735(1) (Mo.App.1976). This rule demands strict application in court-tried cases. Matter of Estate of Langford, 529 S.W.2d 31, 32(3) (Mo.App.197......