Dubroc v. Dubroc, WD 80315

• Decision Date: 12 December 2017
• Docket Number: WD 80315
• Parties: Steven Joseph DUBROC, Jr., Respondent, v. Sandra Lane DUBROC, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

537 S.W.3d 369

Steven Joseph DUBROC, Jr., Respondent,
v.
Sandra Lane DUBROC, Appellant.

WD 80315

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Opinion filed: December 12, 2017
Rehearing Denied January 30, 2018

Sandra Lane Dubroc, Appellant pro-se.

James P. Buckley, Sedalia, for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge, and Alok Ahuja, Judge

VICTOR C. HOWARD, JUDGE

Sandra Dubroc appeals the trial court's amended judgment of dissolution of marriage. Because of significant deficiencies in Ms. Dubroc's appellate brief, the appeal is dismissed.

Ms. Dubroc appeals pro se. Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as lawyers. J.L. v. Lancaster , 453 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). Although this court is mindful of the difficulties that a party appearing pro se encounters in complying with rules of procedure, pro se appellants must be required to

537 S.W.3d 371

comply with these rules. Id. "It is not for lack of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted). Thus, pro se appellants must comply with Supreme Court Rule 84.04, which sets forth various requirements for appellate briefs. Id.

Compliance with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 is mandatory to ensure that the appellate court does not become an advocate by speculating on facts and arguments that have not been made. Id. Violations of the rule are grounds for dismissal of an appeal. Id.

Whether to dismiss an appeal for briefing deficiencies is discretionary. That discretion is generally not exercised unless the deficiency impedes disposition on the merits. It is always our preference to resolve an appeal on the merits of the case rather than to dismiss an appeal for deficiencies in the brief.

Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).

Ms. Dubroc's brief is deficient in many respects. First, the jurisdictional statement does not comply with Rule 84.04(b). That rule provides, in pertinent part, "The jurisdictional statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of article V, section 3, of the Constitution upon which jurisdiction is sought to be predicated." Ms. Dubroc's jurisdictional statement provides that this case is an appeal from a judgment of the Pettis County circuit court and argument regarding why that judgment was erroneous. It does not set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the applicability of a particular provision of article V, section 3, whereon the jurisdiction of this court is predicted. The jurisdictional statement is, therefore, inadequate under Rule 84.04(b).

Second, the statement of facts fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c), which requires "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the question presented for determination without argument. All statements of fact shall...