Gossett v. Gossett, WD 61364.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 98 S.W.3d 899 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 61364.,WD 61364. |
| Parties | Kenneth GOSSETT, Respondent, v. Laura GOSSETT, Appellant Pro Se. |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2003 |
Page 899
v.
Laura GOSSETT, Appellant Pro Se.
Page 900
Robert C. Paden, Jr., Independence, MO, for Respondent.
Laura Gossett, Blue Springs, pro se.
Before HOWARD, P.J., LOWENSTEIN and HARDWICK, JJ.
HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge.
Laura Gossett pro se, appeals a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Gossett contends the trial court erred by depriving her of her right to Due Process and her right to certain property. Because Appellant filed an incomplete record and a defective brief, this court must dismiss Gossett's appeal.
Kenneth Gossett, Respondent, filed for dissolution of the marriage. Following the dissolution hearing, the trial judge awarded the marital home and its contents, as well as a monetary judgment, to him. In this appeal, Appellant contends she was unfairly deprived of marital property and she was not afforded due process throughout the divorce proceedings. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal asserting that appellant's brief violates the provisions of Rule 84.04. Respondent's motion was taken with the case.
Although Gossett appears pro se, she, as "appellant, is bound by the same rules of procedure as a party represented by a licensed attorney." Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Mo.App.2000). "While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers. It is not for lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties." Id. "Allegations of error not properly briefed `shall not be considered in any civil appeal...." Murphy v. Shur, 6 S.W.3d 207, 209 (Mo.App.1999) (quoting Rule 84.13(a)). Gossett's brief violates most of the provisions of Rule 84.04. "Under the foregoing circumstances we are not obligated to review appellant's brief and we decline to do so." Id. at 210.
First, Gossett has failed to order or file a transcript from the trial court, in violation of Rule 81.12. The appellant "has the duty to present a record that contains `all the evidence necessary for our making determinations in the issues raised.'" State ex. rel. Callahan v. Collins, 978 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Mo.App.1998) (citation omitted); see Rule 81.12(a). This includes
Page 901
the duty to furnish a transcript containing all the records,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Michel, 25785.
..."to present a record that contains `all the evidence necessary for our making determinations in the issues raised.'" Gossett v. Gossett, 98 S.W.3d 899, 900 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (quoting State ex. rel. Callahan v. Collins, 978 S.W.2d 471, 474 (Mo.App. W.D.1998)). "This includes the duty to fur......
-
Brown v. Brown
...304 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). "Failure to meet the requirements set forth in Rule 84.04(c) is grounds for dismissal." Gossett v. Gossett , 98 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). Page references are mandatory because "courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assert......
-
Morfin v. Werdehausen
...officer erred, as required by Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C)(2). Father's point relied on preserves nothing for our review. Gossett v. Gossett, 98 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (holding that point relied on which alleges error in a conclusory manner without specifically identifying specific trial ......
-
State ex rel. Morgan v. Okoye
......Gossett v. Gossett, 98 S.W.3d 899, 900 (Mo.App. W.D.2003); Manning v. Fedotin, 64 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Mo.App. ......