Draper v. Aronowitz, 48957
| Decision Date | 13 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48957,48957 |
| Citation | 695 S.W.2d 923 |
| Parties | Harold E. DRAPER and Norma A. Draper, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jack L. ARONOWITZ, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David R. Spitznagel, Clayton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
James B. Kleinschmidt, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiffs Harold and Norma Draper appeal from a $533.69 judgment in their favor against defendant Jack Aronowitz in a suit on a promissory note. The issue relates to the parties' differing interpretations of a delinquent interest clause contained in the note.
Before reaching the merits, we address defendant's charge that plaintiffs' two points of error fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d). We agree. The points complained of are as follows:
(1) An interest penalty for delinquent interest is due from the date of the instrument or if it is undated from the date of issue where the delinquency clause is ambiguous.
(2) If a contract is fairly open to two interpretations, that construction must be adopted which is against him who prepared it.
There is no question these points are simply abstract statements of law neglecting to set forth wherein and why the action of the trial court is claimed to be erroneous and are therefore violative of Rule 84.04(d), preserving nothing for review by this court. Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685 (Mo.banc 1978).
Cited as authorities in support of the first point relied on are State v. Wickizer, 563 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1978), a criminal case involving a conviction of a penitentiary inmate who broke 11 windows and an electric clock in the penitentiary, and RSMo. 400.3-117, a section of the Uniform Commercial Code entitled "Instruments Payable with Words of Description." These authorities are totally unrelated to any issue in this case.
The jurisdictional statement, rather than setting forth factual data demonstrating the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution, as required by Rule 84.04(b) merely states that the defendant is a resident of the State of Missouri and therefore the appeal is to the "St. Louis Court of Appeals." See Estate of DeGraff, 560 S.W.2d 342, 344-45 (Mo.App.1977).
The requirements of Rule 84.04 are not only mandatory but also essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts. Pickett v. Stockard, 605 S.W.2d 196, 197 (Mo.App.1980). It is not our duty or responsibility to spend judicial time searching through legal files, transcripts or argument portions of briefs in an attempt to interpret the thrust of a party's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagleburger v. Emerson Elec. Co., 16042
...Emerson's brief in an effort to discover the rulings Emerson seeks to attack, a task we are not obliged to undertake. Draper v. Aronowitz, 695 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo.App.1985); Tripp v. Harryman, 613 S.W.2d 943, 950 The first instance mentioned by Emerson is testimony by plaintiffs' witness Gr......
-
McMullin v. Borgers
...at 292. The requirements of Rule 84.04 are mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts. Draper v. Aronowitz, 695 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo.App.1985). There is authority which allows us to look to the argument portion of the brief for the purpose of determining plain ......
-
Phillips v. Bradshaw
...presents nothing for appellate review. Cain v. Buehner and Buehner, 839 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo.App.S.D.1992). Draper v. Aronowitz, 695 S.W.2d 923, 923-24 (Mo.App.E.D.1985); Tripp v. Harryman, 613 S.W.2d 943, 950 By his first point, Defendant maintains the trial court erred in refusing to set a......
-
J.C. Jones and Co. v. Doughty, 15363
...784, 787 (Mo.App.1978). A point consisting merely of an abstract statement of law does not comply with Rule 84.04(d). Draper v. Aronowitz, 695 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Mo.App.1985). A point stating that the trial court erred in that it "erroneously applied and declared the law" is nothing but an ab......