Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N.A. v. Conrad, 38884
| Decision Date | 27 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38884,38884 |
| Citation | 560 S.W.2d 388 |
| Parties | COMMERCE BANK OF KANSAS CITY, N. A., a Banking Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William E. CONRAD, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Three |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William E. Conrad, pro se.
Robert N. Feldmann, Gary A. Growe, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County for $947.64 in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant, William E. Conrad. The action was instituted in the Magistrate Court of St. Louis County wherein judgment in the amount of $947.64 was entered in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant perfected his appeal to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County for trial de novo. In the Circuit Court, as in the Magistrate Court, the defendant-appellant appeared in propria persona, and the cause was tried to the court without a jury in each instance. The judgment aforesaid was entered by the Circuit Court and defendant-appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. Subsequently appellant filed a motion for transfer to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. This motion was denied.
Throughout this case, as in this court, the defendant-appellant chose to appear pro se and has filed a pro se brief in this court on appeal of the aforesaid judgment of the Circuit Court. His brief is a composite of legalistic phrasing and acrimonious allegations directed against the trial judges in both the Magistrate and Circuit Courts in which the cause was tried.
We find ourselves unable to decide this case on the merits because the Statement of Facts contained in defendant-appellant's brief is so woefully deficient and constitutes a flagrant failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(c). We are compelled to dismiss this appeal on this basis alone.
While the defendant-appellant has the right to try and appeal his own case, he is bound by the same rules of procedure as those admitted to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence he would not have received if represented by counsel. State v. Bruce, 554 S.W.2d 482, 483(2) (Mo.App.1977); Collector of Revenue of the City of St. Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 531 S.W.2d 100(2) (Mo.App.1975).
Rule 84.04(c) requires that a Statement of Facts be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument. The purpose of this Rule is to provide the appellate court with an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case. Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984(3) (Mo.1952). The Statement of Facts in defendant-appellant's brief utterly fails to accomplish this purpose and is violative of the Rule in numerous ways.
Defendant-appellant's Statement of Facts fails to make any reference to the subject matter of the suit. While it contains a chronological compendium of the procedural history of the case, it fails to provide any facts informing this Court of the general nature of the controversy. A Statement of Facts which contains no relevant facts is violative of Rule 84.04(c). Walker Brothers, Inc. v. J. K. Seear (U. S. A.) Ltd., 364 S.W.2d 51, 52(1) (Mo.App.1962). It is a flagrant violation of not only the requirement of the Rule that the facts be presented without argument in this portion of the brief Rule 84.04(c) but it contains remarks and allegations unsupported by citation to the part of the transcript of the record where they may be found. It accuses the Magistrate Judge of collusion with the plaintiff-respondent, the acts and decisions of the Circuit Court Judge are categorized as "unconstitutional" and it accuses the Circuit Court Judge and the plaintiff-respondent of conspiring. These remarks and others contained in defendant-appellant's Statement of Facts represent they type of inflammatory and biased comments prohibited in a Statement of Facts by Rule 84.04(c).
Defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Wilson
...562 F.2d 908, 912-913 (3d Cir.1977); In re Brewster, 115 N.H. 636, 638, 351 A.2d 889 (1975) (per curiam); Commerce Bank of Kansas City v. Conrad, 560 S.W.2d 388, 390 (Mo.App.1977). We see no reason to make an exception here. b. Wilson, Jr. We now turn to the challenge raised by Wilson, Jr. ......
-
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. v. Brodsky
...construed to promote justice and to minimize the number of cases disposed of on procedural questions. Commerce Bank of Kansas City v. Conrad, 560 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Mo.App.1977). We may rule on the merits of the appeal where the issues and questions are clear and can be found somewhere else i......
-
Vodicka v. Upjohn Co.
...Id. at 87 (footnotes omitted). The problem persisted after its discussion by Judge Weier and Mr. Fairbank. In Commerce Bank of Kansas City v. Conrad, 560 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1977), the court dismissed an appeal concluding, "[D]efendant-appellant's Statement of Facts is so confusing that it f......
-
Executive Bd. of Missouri Bapt. v. Carnahan
...to promote justice and to minimize the number of cases disposed of on procedural questions...." Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N.A. v. Conrad, 560 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Mo.App.1977). The Executive Board's independent corporate status neither divests it of the authority granted by the Convention's......