In Re the Marriage of: Rose Marie Gerhard

• Decision Date: 04 January 2001
• Citation: 34 S.W.3d 305
• Parties: (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) In Re the Marriage of: Rose Marie Gerhard and Paul Christopher Gerhard. Rose Marie Gerhard, Respondent, v. Paul Christopher Gerhard, Appellant. 23429 and 23463 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

34 S.W.3d 305 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) In Re the Marriage of: Rose Marie Gerhard and Paul Christopher Gerhard. Rose Marie Gerhard, Respondent,
v.
Paul Christopher Gerhard, Appellant. 23429 and 23463 Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District 01/04/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Christian County, Hon. William Anthony McConnell

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: James R. Royce and William H. McDonald

Opinion Summary: None

Prewitt, J., and Mitchell, Sp.J., concur.

Robert S. Barney, Chief Judge

Paul Christopher Gerhard ("Appellant") appeals, pro se, from a Judgment of Contempt entered by the Circuit Court of Christian County, Missouri. He also appeals from the circuit court's Order to Vest Title to Real Property and an Order for Sequestration, Attachment or Possession.¹ The above judgment and orders arose from an underlying dissolution action between Appellant and his former wife, Rose Marie Gerhard ("Respondent").

As best we can glean from Appellant's brief, his complaints appear to relate to a post-dissolution sale, at auction, of the marital home, and seem to center on the assertion that the sale was not authorized by the "Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage." Appellant also contends his failure to sign a quit claim deed to help effectuate the sale was not contempt of court.²

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal asserting that Appellant's brief violates the provisions of Rule 84.04, Missouri Court Rules (2000).³ Respondent's motion was taken with the case. As explained below, Respondent's motion is well taken.

Appellant's brief violates most of the provisions of Rule 84.04. His statement of facts is not a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument. See Rule 84.04(c). "This requirement serves to define the scope of the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo.App. 2000). "Such a violation of Rule 84.04 constitutes grounds for the dismissal of [Appellant's] appeal, although we hesitate to dismiss an appeal for this reason alone." Id.

We also observe that Rule 84.04(a) provides:

The brief for appellant shall contain:

(1) A detailed table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and other authorities cited, with reference to...