Hoover v. Hoover, WD 81697

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
• Citation: 581 S.W.3d 638
• Parties: Robert Dee HOOVER, Appellant, v. Lynda S. HOOVER, Respondent.
• Docket Number: WD 81697
• Decision Date: 30 April 2019

581 S.W.3d 638

Robert Dee HOOVER, Appellant,
v.
Lynda S. HOOVER, Respondent.

WD 81697

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: April 30, 2019
Application for Transfer Denied September 3, 2019

Robert Dee Hoover, Princeton, Appellant pro se.

Deborah L. Havens, Trenton, for Respondent.

Before Division One: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Gary D. Witt, Judges

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

Robert Hoover ("Husband") appeals from the judgment dissolving his marriage to Lynda Hoover ("Wife"). Because of significant deficiencies in Husband’s appellate brief that prevent us from determining what his actual claims of circuit court error are, we dismiss his appeal.

Husband appears pro se. We struck his initial brief for multiple specific violations of Rule 84.04. Husband filed an amended brief that was substantially similar to the stricken brief. Wife subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Husband’s appeal due to the deficiencies in his amended brief. We took Wife’s motion with the case.

Rule 84.04 sets forth requirements for appellate briefing. "[C]ompliance 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." 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). Although Husband appears pro se , he "is subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs." Lattimer , 412 S.W.3d at 422 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

First, Husband’s statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c), which requires "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." "The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Tavacoli v....