Duncan v. Duncan
Decision Date | 21 September 2010 |
Docket Number | No. ED 93966.,ED 93966. |
Citation | 320 S.W.3d 725 |
Parties | Daniel E. DUNCAN, Respondent,v.Bonnie L. DUNCAN, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Daniel E. DUNCAN, Respondent,
v.
Bonnie L. DUNCAN, Appellant.
No. ED 93966.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Five.
Sept. 21, 2010.
Daniel E. Duncan, House Springs, MO, for respondent.
Before: GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
PER CURIAM.
Bonnie Duncan (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment granting a full order of protection after Daniel E. Duncan filed a petition for protection, pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, Sections 455.010 through 455.085 RSMo 2004. 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
Rule 84.04 sets forth various requirements for appellate briefs, and compliance with these requirements is “mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.” Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City. Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo.App. W.D.2007). Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Pointer v. State, Dep't of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot give preferential treatment to non-lawyers. It is not for lack of sympathy, but rather is “necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties.” Elkins v. Elkins, 257 S.W.3d 617, 618 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (citation omitted).
Rule 84.04 sets forth certain requirements for an appellant's brief, including (1) a jurisdictional statement, (2) a statement of facts, (3) the points relied on, and (4) argument. Rule 84.04(b)-(e). Here, Appellant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects. First, Appellant's brief fails to either include a jurisdictional statement or identify points on appeal. Rule 84.04(b), (d).
Second, Appellant's one-page statement of facts does not contain a “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(c). Rather, Appellant's statement is argumentative, incomplete, and references matters outside the record on appeal. See Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (dismissing appeal when, among other things,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Craig v. Craig
...by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." Id. (quoting Duncan v. Duncan , 320 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ). Even beyond the deficiencies in the points relied on, Husband's Points I, II, IV, and VI suffer from additional preservati......
-
Deere v. Deere
...that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.’ " Duncan v. Duncan , 320 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc. , 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) ). "The failure to s......
-
Craig v. Craig
... ... judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." ... Id. (quoting Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d ... 725, 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010)) ... Even ... beyond the deficiencies in the points ... ...
-
Deere v. Deere
...that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.'" Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting Brown v. AmeristarPage 5 Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007)). "The failure to......