Bentlage v. Springgate, 16486
| Decision Date | 08 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 16486,16486 |
| Citation | 793 S.W.2d 228 |
| Parties | Darvin BENTLAGE and Kenneth Bentlage, Appellants, v. Clinton SPRINGGATE and Melba Springgate, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles M. LeCompte, Springfield, for appellants.
Charles D. Curless, Lamar, for respondents.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Barton County.This case was tried before the court without a jury.It proceeded to trial on appellants' amended petition and on respondents' six-count counterclaim.The amended petition sought recovery in Count I for breach of contract; in Counts II and III for fraudulent misrepresentation; and in Count IV for "prima facie tort."1Respondents' counterclaim sought recovery in Counts I, II and III for breach of contract; in Count IV for malicious prosecution; in Count V for abuse of process; and sought punitive damages in Count VI.
The causes of action set forth in appellants' amended petition and in respondents' counterclaim arose from business dealings in which appellants rented certain farmlands from respondents.The rental agreement was prepared by respondents without the assistance of an attorney.It provided, in addition to the rental terms,
After having rented the farmlands to appellants for four years, respondents decided to sell the property.The farms were listed for sale.About the time the farms were listed, respondents offered to sell them to appellants.Appellants did not purchase the farms.They expressed doubts whether the farms would sell due to poor economic conditions in the Barton County area.The property was eventually sold to other persons.This litigation arose, after the property had sold, over disputes as to delinquent rent owed by appellants and complaints by appellants that they had been wrongfully denied access to the farmlands.The trial court entered judgment in all counts of appellants' petition in favor of respondents and against appellants; and in Counts I and II of respondents' counterclaim in favor of respondents and against appellants and awarded respondents damages in Counts I and II of the counterclaim.The trial court found for appellants and against respondents on the remaining counts of the counterclaim.This court affirms.
In addition to the briefs of the parties, respondents have filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Alternatively to Affirm Judgment.The issues raised by the motion are considered before addressing the merits of the appeal.
By their motion, respondents contend that appellants have not complied with Rule 84.04(d).They argue that the "points relied on" in appellants' brief do not briefly and concisely state the actions or rulings appellants seek to have reviewed.They contend that the "points relied on" do not state the "wherein and why" upon which appellants base their claim that the trial court committed error.
Rule 84.04(d) states, with respect to "points relied on" in appellate briefs:
(d) Points Relied On.The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities thereunder....
Setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court is not a compliance with this Rule.
Three things are required with respect to points relied on: (1) a statement of the action or ruling of the trial court about which the party complains; (2) a statement that specifies why the ruling was erroneous; and (3) a statement informing the appellate court wherein the evidence at trial supports the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken.
In Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685(Mo. banc 1978), the supreme court gave the following explanation of the "wherein and why" in points relied on.The court explained the context of Rule 84.04 as follows:
[C]ompliance with these requirements is a matter of common sense if counsel bear in mind the informational purpose of the brief.After stating the ruling the trial court actually made, it stands to reason that the point should then specify why the ruling was erroneous.This requirement essentially contemplates a statement which ordinarily will closely approximate what appellant believes should have been the trial court's conclusion of law on the point being addressed.After stating why the ruling was erroneous, the court then must be informed wherein the testimony or evidence gives rise to the ruling for which appellant contends.
The "points relied on" in appellants' brief states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS AGAINST APPELLANTS FOR PAST DUE RENT ON A LEASE WITHOUT OFFSETTING THE DAMAGES BY THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY RESPONDENTS TO APPELLANTS IN BREACHING THE LEASE AND SELLING THE LAND WHEN THE TERM OF THE LEASE STILL HAD ONE YEAR TO GO FORCING APPELLANTS TO BE UNABLE TO FARM THE LAND FOR THE FINAL YEAR ON THE LEASE, AND IN ORDERING UNPAID RENT TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS TO RESPONDENTS ON THE LAND FOR A FOUR MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD AND THE NEW OWNERS HAD TAKEN POSSESSION, AND APPELLANTS HAD BEEN ORDERED OFF THE LAND; IN FAILING TO FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE LEASE; THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, ERRONEOUSLY APPLIES THE LAW, AND LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
Although set out in the brief as a single paragraph, appellants designate the foregoing as "points" rather than as a single point on appeal.2They attempted to state three separate points upon which they rely.The first point is:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS AGAINST APPELLANTS FOR PAST DUE RENT ON A LEASE WITHOUT OFFSETTING THE DAMAGES BY THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY RESPONDENTS TO APPELLANTS IN BREACHING THE LEASE AND SELLING THE LAND WHEN THE TERM OF THE LEASE STILL HAD ONE YEAR TO GO FORCING APPELLANTS TO BE UNABLE TO FARM THE LAND FOR THE FINAL YEAR ON THE LEASE, AND IN ORDERING UNPAID RENT TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS TO RESPONDENTS ON THE LAND FOR A FOUR MONTH PERIOD AFTER...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubbs v. Hubbs
...Estate of Goslee, 807 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Mo.App.1991); McMullin v. Borgers, 806 S.W.2d 724, 730 (Mo.App.1991); Bentlage v. Springgate, 793 S.W.2d 228, 229-31 (Mo.App.1990); Hoffman v. Koehler, 757 S.W.2d 289, 292 Appellate courts have methodically analyzed faulty points relied on and explaine......
-
Plunk v. Hedrick Concrete Products Corp.
...and why the ruling was erroneous. An insufficient point relied on preserves nothing for this court's review. Bentlage v. Springgate, 793 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Mo.App.1990). See also White v. White, 846 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.1993). This point is, therefore, In Point III, Defendant contends that......
-
Board of Regents for Southwest Missouri State University v. Harriman
...supports the position SMSU asserts the trial court should have taken. The points relied on are sufficient. See Bentlage v. Springgate, 793 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Mo.App.1990). American National's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied. American National next ......
-
Stroup v. Facet Automotive Filter Co.
...887 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Mo.App.E.D.1994); Carrier v. City of Springfield, 852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.S.D.1993); Bentlage v. Springgate, 793 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Mo.App.S.D.1990). Appellant's points relied on fail to state wherein or why the action complained of was erroneous. Even if Point I(A) c......