Bieri v. Gower, No. 26492.

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtRobert S. Barney
Citation157 S.W.3d 264
PartiesLeonard BIERI, III, Appellant, v. Charles J. GOWER and Melanie F. Gower, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 26492.
Decision Date07 January 2005
157 S.W.3d 264
Leonard BIERI, III, Appellant,
v.
Charles J. GOWER and Melanie F. Gower, Respondents.
No. 26492.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.
January 7, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied January 31, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied April 5, 2005.

[157 S.W.3d 265]

Leonard Bieri, III, Springfield, pro se.

No brief filed for Respondents.

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.


Leonard Bieri, III ("Appellant"), appeals from a judgment and order dismissing his cause of action against Charles J. Gower and Melanie F. Gower ("Respondents").1

157 S.W.3d 266

He now raises two points of trial court error.

We immediately note Appellant's violation of numerous briefing errors that are contrary to the requirements contained in Rule 84.04.2

First, Appellant's statement of facts is not "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Rule 84.04(c) (emphasis added). Appellant begins with a rambling and lengthy dissertation of laws and rules primarily relating to a federal criminal case styled as "Criminal Case No. 92-03044-02-CR-RGC," together with attendant criticism of the actions of the United States Government arising from that case. In the latter portion of the statement of facts, Appellant engages in arguments remarkably devoid of lucidity and logical progression.

The statement of facts requirements set out in Rule 84.04(c) "`serve[] to define the scope of the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.'" In re Marriage of Gerhard, 34 S.W.3d 305, 306-07 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo.App.2000)). Appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 84.04(c). This constitutes grounds for the dismissal of Appellant's appeal, although we hesitate to dismiss an appeal for this reason alone. Id. at 307.

Second, Appellant's "Points Relied Upon" read as follows:

Points Relied Upon for Argument I

A Federal Criminal Judgment and Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Federal law as Conviction Lien and Execution Judgments are not exempt from the faith and credit procedures set out under United States Constitution Article IV Section 1, Title 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1738, Vernon's Annotated Missouri Statute 490.130, Missouri Civil Procedure Rule 74.14.

Points Relied Upon for Argument II

The Circuit Court's rejection of original jurisdiction over a quiet title and ejectment action involving a federal order of forfeiture was not warranted under Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure[ ], Rule 74.14, Rule 87.02 and Vernon's Annotated Missouri Statute 527.150(1)(2).

"`Whether civil or criminal, all briefs filed in an appellate court must comply with Rule 84.04.'" State v. Hackler, 122 S.W.3d 132, 133 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting State v. Watkins, 102 S.W.3d 570, 571 (Mo.App.2003)). Rule 84.04(d)(1) sets out that:

(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:

(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;

(B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and

(C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: `The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons

157 S.W.3d 267

for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].'

Here, neither of Appellant's points approaches compliance with Rule 84.04(d)(1) in that each fails to "explain in summary fashion why, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Carden v. City of Rolla, No. SD 29534.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 19, 2009
    ..."`Pro se parties ... are not entitled to indulgences they would not have received if represented by counsel.'" Bieri v. Gower, 157 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App.2005) (quoting Belisle v. City of Senath, 974 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Mo.App.1998)). "`While this [C]ourt recognizes the problems faced by pro ......
  • Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, No. ED 92957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 15, 2009
    ...the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the case." Bieri v. Gower, 157 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005). Claimant's narration of the facts is argumentative, incomplete, and references matters outside the record on appe......
  • Bieri v. Gower, No. 05-5250.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 3, 2005
    ...2d 204 BIERI v. GOWER ET UX. No. 05-5250. Supreme Court of United States. October 3, 2005.* Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Reported below: 157 S. W. 3d 264. Certiorari * THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of the orders announced on this date. --------------- ...
3 cases
  • Carden v. City of Rolla, No. SD 29534.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 19, 2009
    ..."`Pro se parties ... are not entitled to indulgences they would not have received if represented by counsel.'" Bieri v. Gower, 157 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App.2005) (quoting Belisle v. City of Senath, 974 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Mo.App.1998)). "`While this [C]ourt recognizes the problems faced by pro ......
  • Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, No. ED 92957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 15, 2009
    ...the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the case." Bieri v. Gower, 157 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005). Claimant's narration of the facts is argumentative, incomplete, and references matters outside the record on appe......
  • Bieri v. Gower, No. 05-5250.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 3, 2005
    ...2d 204 BIERI v. GOWER ET UX. No. 05-5250. Supreme Court of United States. October 3, 2005.* Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Reported below: 157 S. W. 3d 264. Certiorari * THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of the orders announced on this date. --------------- ...

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