Houston v. Weisman
| Decision Date | 27 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 87087.,ED 87087. |
| Citation | 197 S.W.3d 204 |
| Parties | Vivian HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey T. WEISMAN, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Vivian Houston, St. Louis, pro se.
Jeffrey T. Weisman, Earth City, pro se.
The plaintiff, Vivian Houston, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County granting summary judgment against her and in favor of the defendant, Jeffrey T. Weisman.We dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rules 84.04(d), 84.04(e), and 84.13(a).
Vivian Houston sued attorney Jeffrey Weisman, alleging fraud in connection with prior foreclosure and unlawful-detainer proceedings brought against Houston by Weisman's client, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.In the instant case, the trial court granted Weisman's motion for summary judgment.Houston appeals, pro se, and appears to complain of fraud in the earlier proceedings against her and unfairness in this case.Weisman filed no respondent's brief.
Pro seappellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with rules of appellate procedure.Davis v. Coleman,93 S.W.3d 742, 742(Mo. App. E.D.2002).Failure to comply constitutes grounds for dismissal.Id. at 742-43.Houston has failed to comply with Rules 84.04and84.13 so substantially that her appeal is unreviewable.
Rule 84.04(d) requires that a point relied on identify the challenged trial-court ruling or action, state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error, and explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.Snyder v. Snyder,142 S.W.3d 780, 782-83(Mo.App. E.D.2004)(per curiam).Failure to follow Rule 84.04 can result in failure to preserve anything for appellate review.Davis,93 S.W.3d at 743.In her first point, Houston claims she did not receive a fair hearing and provides a narrative timeline of filings and rulings in the trial court.In her second point, Houston claims the court should have denied Weisman's motion.Neither of Houston's points relied on conforms to Rule 84.04(d).Her first point fails to include any of the requirements of Rule 84.04(d).Her second point fails to state the legal reasons for her claim of reversible error or to explain why those legal reasons support her claim.
Houston's brief also fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e).Rule 84.04(e) provides that the point relied on shall be restated at the beginning of the argument section discussing that point.The points stated at the beginning of each argument are wholly different than those contained in the points relied on section.The points contained in the brief's argument section are incoherent and likewise fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(d).Point I preceding the argument section claims the trial court erred in affirming the decision of the associate circuit court, apparently referring to the earlier judgment against Houston in the unlawful-detainer action.This version of Point I fails to state the legal reasons for Houston's claim of reversible error or to explain why those legal reasons support her claim.Point II in the argument section simply urges us to read Weisman's uncontroverted facts, apparently referring to the summary-judgment motion.This version of Point II fails to meet any of the requirements of Rule 84.04(d).Rule 84.04(e) also provides that the argument shall substantially follow the order of the points relied on and shall be limited to errors included in the points.Here, the argument under each point fails to relate in any meaningful way to either version of Houston's points, thus failing to comply with Rule 84.04(e).
Furthermore, Houston preserves nothing for appeal in that she has not properly briefed any allegation of error or developed...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Dancin Development v. Nrt Missouri
...reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error." Rule 84.04(d)(1); see also
Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). "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." Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823 W.D.2004)(quoting... -
Kramer v. Park-et Restaurant, Inc.
...however, still bound by the same rules as a party represented by an attorney. Id. A pro se appellant, such as the claimant, must comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). We do not grant pro se appellants preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules. Thornton v. City of Kirkwood, 161 S.W.3d 916, 919 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Although we are mindful of the problems faced by pro se litigants,... -
Blakey v. Aaa Professional Pest Control
...those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error," as required by Rule 84.04(d)(2)(C). Missouri courts also require an appellant to "develop the contention raised in the point relied on in the argument section of the brief."
Houston, 197 S.W.3d at 206. Here, Blakey's argument is completely devoid of legal authority, and contains only generalized conclusory statements. Moreover, Blakey makes no attempt whatsoever to cite to the record below, and thus, this Court is left towe are compelled to dismiss the appeal. We note initially that pro se appellants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and thus, their briefs must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Failure to comply with these rules constitutes grounds for dismissal. Id. Furthermore, established Missouri precedent holds that "[a]ppellate courts are not required to review an appeal on the merits where thereattorneys, and thus, their briefs must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Failure to comply with these rules constitutes grounds for dismissal. Id.Furthermore, established Missouri precedent holds that "[a]ppellate courts are not required to review an appeal on the merits where there are flagrant violations of Rule 84.04 concerning the requirements of an appellate brief in a civil case." Coleman v. Gilyard, 969... -
Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers
...briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal. Houston , 197 S.W.3d at 206. To properly brief the alleged error, an appellant must develop the contention raised in the point relied on in the argument section of the brief.
Id.If a party does not support contentions with relevant authority or argument beyond conclusory statements, the point is deemed abandoned. Id. The argument section should advise the appellate court how principles of law and the factsre-stated at the beginning of each argument, followed by the standard of review for each point. Similarly, Rule 84.13(a) states that allegations of error not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal. Houston , 197 S.W.3d at 206. To properly brief the alleged error, an appellant must develop the contention raised in the point relied on in the argument section of the brief. Id. If a party does not support contentions with relevant authority or argumentappellant must develop the contention raised in the point relied on in the argument section of the brief. Id. If a party does not support contentions with relevant authority or argument beyond conclusory statements, the point is deemed abandoned. Id.The argument section should advise the appellate court how principles of law and the facts of the case interact. In re Marriage of Fritz , 243 S.W.3d 484, 487 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). If an appellant fails to support his claim beyond mere...