Duncan-anderson v. Duncan

• Decision Date: 21 September 2010
• Docket Number: No. ED 93975.,ED 93975.
• Citation: 321 S.W.3d 498
• Parties: Rachel Evette DUNCAN-ANDERSON, Respondent, v. Bonnie L. DUNCAN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

321 S.W.3d 498

Rachel Evette DUNCAN-ANDERSON, Respondent,
v.
Bonnie L. DUNCAN, Appellant.

No. ED 93975.

Missouri Court of Appeals,Eastern District,Division Five.

Sept. 21, 2010.

321 S.W.3d 499

Bonnie L. Duncan, Hillsboro, MO, pro se.

Rachel Evette, Duncan-Anderson, Herculaneum, MO, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

PER CURIAM.

Introduction

Bonnie Duncan (Appellant) appeals the trial court's judgment granting the respondent a full order of protection pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, Sections 455.010 through 455.085. Appellant's brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it. ¹

We hold pro se appellants to the same standards as attorneys. Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). “Accordingly, pro se appellants must comply with Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets forth mandatory rules for appellate briefing.” Id. “Failure to conform to the mandates of Rule 84.04 results in unpreserved allegations of error and constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal.” Id. This court finds Appellant's brief deficient in numerous respects: The brief does not contain a table of cases, statutes, and other authorities cited; a jurisdictional statement; or a “fair and concise” statement of facts. Rule 84.04(a)-(c). Also, Appellant's brief neither identifies the points relied on nor presents a legal argument in compliance with Rule 84.04(d) and (e).

Rule 84.04(c) requires “a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(c). “Failure to provide a fair and concise statement of the facts that complies with Rule 84.04(c) is a basis for dismissal of the appeal.” In re Marriage of Smith, 283 S.W.3d 271, 274 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Appellant's statement of facts is not concise. In her brief, Appellant designates two separate sections “Facts of Case,” and these sections contain extensive discussion of matters not relevant to the issues on appeal. See, e.g., Smith, 283 S.W.3d at 273. Also, Appellant's statement of facts is argumentative in that it accuses the respondent of misusing the Adult Abuse Act and raises irrelevant arguments about hate crimes, defamation, and the right to privacy. See, e.g., Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, 299 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Mo.App. S.D.2009). Finally, Appellant fails to...