Hamilton v. Archer, No. ED 105342

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtAngela T. Quigless, J.
Citation545 S.W.3d 377
Decision Date20 March 2018
Docket NumberNo. ED 105342
Parties Adam Lee HAMILTON, Appellant, v. George M. ARCHER, Respondent.

545 S.W.3d 377

Adam Lee HAMILTON, Appellant,
v.
George M. ARCHER, Respondent.

No. ED 105342

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: March 20, 2018
Rehearing Denied April 23, 2018


Adam L. Hamilton (Acting Pro Se), #501936, 8200 No More Victims Road 4-C209, Jefferson City, MO. 65101, for appellant.

George M. Archer, 4500 Telegraph, Suite 106, St. Louis, MO. 63129, for respondent.

Opinion

Angela T. Quigless, J.

Adam Lee Hamilton ("Mr. Hamilton") appeals pro se from the circuit court’s judgment following a trial de novo on his small claims petition against George M. Archer ("Mr. Archer"). The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Archer. Mr. Hamilton’s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and we therefore dismiss it.

Discussion

Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the mandatory appellate briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.1 Scott v. Potter Elec. Signal Co. , 310 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ; Richardson v. Meritorious Care, Inc. , 307 S.W.3d 684, 684 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). "Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitates that we do not grant pro se litigants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules." Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). While we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible, if the deficiencies in the brief are such that no claims are preserved for appellate review, then we must dismiss the appeal. Scott , 310 S.W.3d at 312 (citing Schaefer v. Altman , 250 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ).

Here, Mr. Hamilton failed to comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects. First, Mr. Hamilton’s 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, Mr. Hamilton’s statement is entirely argumentative and fails to provide this Court with "an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Kuenz v. Walker , 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). Further, although Mr. Hamilton provides citations to the legal file and transcript, the majority

545 S.W.3d 380

of the citations are incorrect or cite to the legal file as a whole. Rule 84.04(c); Lueker v. Mo. W. State Univ. , 241 S.W.3d 865, 868 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (citations in appellate briefs are "mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record").

Second, Mr. Hamilton’s two points relied on fail to adhere to Rule 84.04(d)(1). Under Rule 84.04(d)(1), a point on appeal shall: (1) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (2) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Here, neither of Mr. Hamilton’s points on appeal states any legal reason for reversal nor explains why those reasons constitute error in the context of the case. "The function of this rule is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review." Moseley v. Grundy Cty. Dist. R-V Sch. , 319 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Mo. App. E.D...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 2, 2019
    ...that no claims are preserved for appellate review." Taylor, ––– S.W.3d at ––––, 2019 WL 1029609, at *5 (citing Hamilton v. Archer, 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ); see also Carden v. Mo. Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 258 S.W.3d 547, 557 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ("This......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...fails to provide "an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (quoting Kuenz v. Walker , 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ). Second, Carmen fails to comply with Rule 84......
  • Campbell v. Woodland Lakes Trusteeship, Inc., No. ED 107749
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 2019
    ...to effectively "explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error." Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ; see also Hiner v. Hiner , 573 S.W.3d 732, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). Our court cannot just attempt a good guess ......
  • DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc. v. Creative Client Recovery, Inc., No. ED 109090
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 16, 2021
    ...its own argument on behalf of the appellant. See Burgan v. Newman, 618 S.W.3d 712, 716 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting Hamilton v. Archer, 545 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ) ("[T]he function of an appellate court is not to serve as an advocate for the parties on appeal, and this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 2, 2019
    ...such that no claims are preserved for appellate review." Taylor, ––– S.W.3d at ––––, 2019 WL 1029609, at *5 (citing Hamilton v. Archer, 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ); see also Carden v. Mo. Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 258 S.W.3d 547, 557 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) ("This [C]o......
  • Deere v. Deere, WD 83906
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 29, 2021
    ...pro se litigants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules.’ " Id. (quoting Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ). Rule 84.04(a)(3) requires the brief for appellant to contain a statement of facts. Rule 84.04(c) provides tha......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...Carmen fails to provide "an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (quoting Kuenz v. Walker , 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ). Second, Carmen fails to comply with Rule 84.04......
  • Campbell v. Woodland Lakes Trusteeship, Inc., No. ED 107749
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 2019
    ...case, and to effectively "explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error." Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ; see also Hiner v. Hiner , 573 S.W.3d 732, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). Our court cannot just attempt a good guess ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT