Estate of Phillips v. Matney
| Citation | 40 S.W.3d 15 |
| Decision Date | 05 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 23732,23732 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) In the Estate of Cecil Phillips, Deceased Barbara A. Godley, Administrator Pendente Lite, Petitioner/Respondent v. Ivle Ray Matney, Jr., Respondent/Appellant. 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Dunklin County, Hon. Stephen R. Mitchell
Counsel for Appellant: Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent: No appearance
Opinion Summary: None
Ivle Ray Matney, Jr. (Appellant) appeals the Judgment of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Dunklin County, filed November 19, 1999, determining that title and right of possession of certain cash funds belong to the estates of Cecil and Ethel Phillips, decedents. In addition, Appellant is appealing the Order issued by the Probate Division, filed November 19, 1999, sustaining Petitioner's motion to dismiss the claim of Appellant for the return of said funds, and further barring Appellant from re-litigating the issue of rightful ownership of the aforementioned cash funds. The appeal is dismissed.
On May 10, 1999, Petitioner, as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of Cecil Phillips, filed a "Petition for Discovery of Assets and for Constructive Trust," in the Circuit Court of Dunklin County, Probate Division. Therein, Petitioner requested a determination of "the title and right of possession of" approximately $5,300.00 in cash that was recovered from Appellant's residence or in or around his vehicle during the investigation of the murders and robbery of Cecil Phillips and Ethel Phillips, for which Appellant had been convicted. At the time Petitioner filed her petition, she alleged that the cash was in the possession of the Dunklin County Prosecutor, held as evidence. Petitioner further asked the court to "impose a constructive trust on said cash for the benefit of the Estates of Cecil Phillips and Ethel Phillips."1
The State filed a motion to intervene "to protect its possessory interest in and to" the cash, contending it was in the possession of the Southeast Missouri Regional Crime Lab and was "essential" to the then-continuing investigation.
Appellant filed his Answer, claiming that $2,300 of the cash seized was his property, as it was a portion of an $11,000.00 workers' compensation settlement he received in June, 1996.
On October 25, 1999, after an opinion from the Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirming Appellant's conviction (State v. Matney, 979 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.App. 1998)), Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellant's claim to the cash, stating that "[t]he issue of Respondent's claim for said monies is res judicata, rightful ownership of the funds having been determined in the criminal trial."
In answer to Petitioner's motion to dismiss, Appellant contended that in its opinion affirming the conviction, the appellate court made "no determination or finding that these funds belong to either Cecil or Ethel Phillips," and asserted that "res judicata is not an appropriate legal conclusion for this court."
The Circuit Court of Dunklin County Probate Division found for Petitioner and determined that title and right of possession of the $5,300.00 belonged to the estates of Cecil and Ethel Phillips and ordered the transfer of the cash upon completion of the investigation and litigation. In its Order dated November 17, 1999, the court dismissed Appellant's claim to the monies at issue and barred Appellant "from re-litigating [the] issue of rightful ownership of the" cash.
It is from this decision that Appellant files his pro se appeal. There was no brief filed by Petitioner.
An appellant proceeding pro se is "held to the same standard as the client of a licensed attorney," State ex rel. Watkins v. Watkins, 972 S.W.2d 609, 610 (Mo.App. 1998), and is bound by the same rules of procedure. Mace v. Daye, 17 S.W.3d 154, 155 (Mo.App. 2000). "While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot relax our standards for non lawyers." Murphy v. Shur, 6 S.W.3d 207, 208 (Mo.App. 1999).
Compliance with the briefing requirements in Rule 84.04 is mandatory "in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and arguments that have not been made." Myrick v. Eastern Broadcasting, Inc., 970 S.W.2d 885, 886 (Mo.App. 1998). "Violations of the rules of appellate procedure are grounds for the dismissal of an appeal." Parnes v. Centertainment, Inc., 14 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo.App. 2000).
Rule 84.04(c) requires that an appellant's statement of facts contains "a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the questions presented for determination." Here, Appellant's statement of facts recites only an abbreviated version of the procedural history of the case and fails to set forth any material evidence, and is therefore deficient.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagle ex rel. Estate of Eagle v. Redmond
...v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 124 (Mo.App.2001); State v. Mitchell, 41 S.W.3d 574, 578 (Mo.App. 2001); Estate of Phillips v. Matney, 40 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Mo.App.2001); In re T.E., 35 S.W.3d 497, 506 (Mo.App.2001); Thomas v. Lloyd, 17 S.W.3d 177, 188 (Mo.App. 2000). "An argument is not ......
-
Yonker v. Yonker
... ... payments under the dissolution decree because most of their assets were “in real estate” and there was a loan against some apartments that Ex–Wife wanted to keep. Ex–Husband ... ...
-
Brady v. Rossotti
...and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case. Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo.App.2000); see Estate of Phillips v. Matney, 40 S.W.3d 15, 18 (Mo.App.2001); In re Marriage of Gerhard, 34 S.W.3d 305, 306-07 (Mo.App. As in Perkel and Phillips, supra, Appellant's statement ......
-
Faustlin v. Mathis
...84.04(e).6 An argument also should demonstrate "`how the principles of law and the facts of the case interact.'" Estate of Phillips v. Matney, 40 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Mo. App.2001) (quoting Christomos v. Holiday Inn Branson, 26 S.W.3d 485, 487 (Mo.App. 2000)). While Appellant states the appropria......