Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kan. City

• Decision Date: 28 October 2014
• Docket Number: WD 77439
• Citation: 453 S.W.3d 271
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: Paula Fesenmeyer, Appellant, v. Land Bank of Kansas City, et al, Respondents.

453 S.W.3d 271

Paula Fesenmeyer, Appellant
v.
Land Bank of Kansas City, et al, Respondents.

WD 77439

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: October 28, 2014
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 25, 2014
Application for Transfer Denied February 3, 2015

Paula Fesenmeyer, Appellant pro se, for appellant.

Chad Stewart, for Respondent Land Bank of KC; Thodore E. Goodloe, for respondent.

Kevin Bergman, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

Opinion

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

Paula Fesenmeyer appeals the circuit court's judgment dismissing, with prejudice, her lawsuit against Land Bank of Kansas City (“Land Bank”) and Kevin Bergman. Because of substantial deficiencies in Fesenmeyer's appellate brief, we dismiss her appeal without reaching the merits of the court's decision to dismiss her petition.

Procedural History

In September 2013, Fesenmeyer filed a “Petition for Judicial Review on Appeal of Decisions of the Land Bank of Kansas City, and Applicant Kevin Bergman, and Damages.” She asserted four claims in her petition: (1) a claim for tortious interference with a contract against Bergman; (2) a claim titled “Stealing and Other Related Offenses” against both Bergman and Land Bank; (3) a claim of discrimination against Bergman, Land Bank, and numerous City of Kansas City employees who were not a party to the suit; and (3) a claim titled “Missouri Constitutional Question” that was not directed at either Bergman or Land Bank but appeared to be directed against the City of Kansas City, which was also not a party to the suit.

In response, Land Bank filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that Fesenmeyer's claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that she failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Bergman also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Fesenmeyer filed suggestions in opposition to the motions to dismiss. In March 2014, the court granted Land Bank's and Bergman's motions to dismiss and dismissed Fesenmeyer's petition with prejudice. Fesenmeyer filed this appeal.

Briefing Deficiencies Require Dismissal of Appeal

Fesenmeyer appears pro se. We struck her initial brief for multiple specific violations of Rule 84.04. Fesenmeyer filed an amended brief. Land Bank subsequently filed a motion to strike her amended brief for non-compliance with Rule 84.04. We took Land Bank's motion with the case.

Rule 84.04 sets forth requirements for appellate briefing. 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.”

453 S.W.3d 274

Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo.App.2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “An appellant's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 ‘preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for dismissing the appeal.’ ” Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo.App.2013) (citation omitted)....