City of Perryville v. Brewer, No. ED 97252.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtKURT S. ODENWALD
Citation376 S.W.3d 691
PartiesCITY OF PERRYVILLE, Missouri, Respondent, v. Leroy J. BREWER, Appellant.
Decision Date20 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. ED 97252.

376 S.W.3d 691

CITY OF PERRYVILLE, Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Leroy J. BREWER, Appellant.

No. ED 97252.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Four.

Aug. 14, 2012.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 2012.


[376 S.W.3d 693]


Lance R. Drury, Law Office of Lance R. Drury, Ste. Genevieve, MO, for Appellant.

Mary Eftink Boner, Ludwig & Boner, L.C., Jackson, MO, for Respondent.


KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge.
Introduction

Leroy Brewer (“Brewer”) appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting Brewer of failure to abate a nuisance under City of Perryville (“City”) Ordinance. The trial court found that Brewer kept an inoperable mobile home on his property and failed to remedy the condition after receiving notice that such violated City ordinance. On appeal, Brewer alleges multiple errors. Brewer's brief substantially fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.041 such that Brewer has preserved nothing for appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss Brewer's appeal.

Factual and Procedural History

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial is as follows. On March 15, 2010, Joseph Martin (“Martin”), City's code enforcer, observed a 65–foot stripped down mobile home frame in public view on Brewer's property. Martin determined that the mobile home was inoperable and therefore a nuisance under City ordinance. On March 16, Martin mailed Brewer a certified letter notifying him that the mobile home constituted a code violation and demanding its removal within ten days. Brewer subsequently spoke directly with Martin and informed Martin that he had no intention of removing the mobile home. On March 25, Martin returned to Brewer's home and observed the mobile home in the same place on Brewer's property. Martin then issued Brewer a municipal citation. During a bench trial, Brewer asserted that the mobile home was actually a hay trailer, and therefore exempt from categorization as a public nuisance under Missouri law. In its judgment, the trial court stated: “In looking at [the mobile home], I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination that that's a hay wagon. It's clearly a mobile home frame. It's still got the old carpeting on it. And it's never been used as a hay wagon.” The trial court subsequently entered a judgment convicting Brewer of failure to abate a nuisance under City ordinance. Brewer was ordered to pay a fine of $150.00, plus court costs. This appeal follows.

Points on Appeal

Brewer presents multiple points on appeal. In his first point on appeal, Brewer contends that the trial court's judgment was in error because the ordinance under which Brewer was charged does not provide adequate notice and does not reference other City ordinances related to public nuisance. In his second point, Brewer argues that the trial court's judgment of conviction was in error because the relevant ordinance is overly broad and because City failed to produce evidence that the mobile home affected members of the public. In his final point on appeal, Brewer contends that the trial court's judgment is in error because his mobile home is actually a hay trailer and is statutorily exempt from classification as a public nuisance.

Discussion

It is well established that the Missouri Supreme Court rules governing appellate briefs are mandatory.

[376 S.W.3d 694]

Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Mo.App. E.D.2010); Rule 84.04 (“The brief for appellant shall contain ...”) (emphasis added). An appellant's failure to substantially comply with the rules governing the contents of an appellate brief preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for dismissing the appeal. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d at 726. Compliance with briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by inferring facts and arguments that the appellant failed to assert. State ex rel. Nixon v. Koonce, 168 S.W.3d 656 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). This Court may exercise its discretion to dismiss the appeal due to briefing errors where the deficiencies impede...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Walton v. City of Seneca, No. SD 32205.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 24, 2013
    ...disposition of the merits of the appeal.’ ” Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo.App. E.D.2013) (quoting City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Mo.App. E.D.2012)). Neither party claims that our consideration of the merits is impeded by the other's briefing deficiencies nor do t......
  • Jones v. Buck, No. SD 32004.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 25, 2013
    ...list supporting legal authority. The requirements for points relied on are laid out in Rule 84.04(d). See City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2012). “The requirement that the point relied on clearly state the contention on appeal is not simply a judicial word game......
  • Bruce v. City of Farmington, No. ED 106048
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 29, 2018
    ...is grounds for dismissing the appeal.’ " Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013) (quoting City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Mo.App.E.D. 2012) ).Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the mandatory appellate briefing rules s......
  • Wong v. Wong, No. ED 98714.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 19, 2013
    ...we cannot review this appeal, we dismiss. Rule 84.04 sets forth mandatory rules for appellate briefing. City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2012). “Compliance with briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Walton v. City of Seneca, No. SD 32205.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 24, 2013
    ...disposition of the merits of the appeal.’ ” Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo.App. E.D.2013) (quoting City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Mo.App. E.D.2012)). Neither party claims that our consideration of the merits is impeded by the other's briefing deficiencies nor do t......
  • Jones v. Buck, No. SD 32004.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 25, 2013
    ...list supporting legal authority. The requirements for points relied on are laid out in Rule 84.04(d). See City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2012). “The requirement that the point relied on clearly state the contention on appeal is not simply a judicial word game......
  • Bruce v. City of Farmington, No. ED 106048
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 29, 2018
    ...is grounds for dismissing the appeal.’ " Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013) (quoting City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 694 (Mo.App.E.D. 2012) ).Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the mandatory appellate briefing rules s......
  • Wong v. Wong, No. ED 98714.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 19, 2013
    ...we cannot review this appeal, we dismiss. Rule 84.04 sets forth mandatory rules for appellate briefing. City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2012). “Compliance with briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates ......
  • 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