Davis v. Coleman, ED 79995.

Citation93 S.W.3d 742
Decision Date23 April 2002
Docket NumberNo. ED 79995.,ED 79995.
PartiesAurelias DAVIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Sequoia COLEMAN, Defendant/Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Aurelias Davis, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Sequoia Coleman, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge.

Plaintiff tenant, Aurelias Davis, appeals from the trial court's judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendant landlord, Sequoia Coleman, on plaintiff's claim to recover rent paid and the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff for $3000 on defendant's counterclaim for damage to an apartment. We dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff filed a pro se appeal from the trial court's judgment. Plaintiff filed his pro se brief and then an amended brief. Defendant, however, did not file a brief in this matter.

Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with Supreme Court rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Woodard v. SmithKline Beecham/Quest, 29 S.W.3d 843, 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for the dismissal of an appeal. Estate of Philips v. Matney, 40 S.W.3d 15, 18 (Mo.App. S.D.2001).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 84.04 so substantially that his appeal is unreviewable. Rule 84.04(c) requires that an appellant's statement of facts contain "a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Here, plaintiffs statement of facts recites only plaintiffs arguments in six numbered paragraphs and fails to set forth any material evidence, and is therefore deficient.

Rule 84.04(d) mandates that a point relied on must "identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; .... state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and .... explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error." Plaintiff sets forth six deficient points relied on, none of which is coherent. Plaintiffs points relied on fail to substantially follow the form set out in Rule 84.04(e). An insufficient point relied on in an appellant's brief preserves nothing for appellate review. Estate of Phillips, 40 S.W.3d at 18.

Rule 84.04(e) provides that the argument portion of an appellate brief shall "include a concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each claim of error." An argument should also advise the appellate court how principles of law and the facts of the case interact. See Christomos v. Holiday Inn Branson, 26 S.W.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • In re Marriage of Fritz, No. ED 89338 (Mo. App. 12/18/2007)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2007
    ...of reversible error. It should advise the appellate court how principles of law and the facts of the case interact. Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Mo.App. 2002); Christomos v. Holiday Inn Branson, 26 S.W.3d 485, 487 (Mo.App. 2000). "' If a party fails to support a contention . . . wi......
  • Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 2009
    ...the record to cure the deficiencies.'" Livingston v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Mo. App.2006) (quoting Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Mo.App.2002)). Appellants' brief is defective to the point that it impedes our disposition of the issues and we are unable to ascerta......
  • In re Marriage of Weinshenker, ED 85806.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2005
    ...Rules of Civil Procedure, we dismiss his appeal. Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d at 321; see also Mahan, 129 S.W.3d at 875; Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 742-43 (Mo.App.2002). 4. Sanctions In her motion to strike, wife also requests that damages be awarded to her for her costs in defending appellan......
  • Rothschild v. Roloff Trucking, ED 89364.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 2007
    ...basis of inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and a search of the record to cure the deficiency." Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Mo.App. E.D.2002)(citing Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 686).2 We dismiss the claimant's appeal for failure to substantially comply with Rule BO......
  • 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