Jones v. Impact Agape Ministries

• Docket Number: ED110507
• Decision Date: 06 June 2023
• Parties: DAVID L. JONES, Appellant, v. IMPACT AGAPE MINISTRIES, ET AL., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

1

DAVID L. JONES, Appellant, v. IMPACT AGAPE MINISTRIES, ET AL., Respondents.

No. ED110507

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division

June 6, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable Krista Peyton

Kelly C. Broniec, Presiding Judge

I. Introduction

Mr David Lee Jones ("Mr. Jones"), a professional musician, appeals the small claims court's judgment finding in favor of Impact Agape Ministries, a church in St Louis County, the church's pastor, C. Kenneth Haynes, and the church's assistant pastor, Hosea Jackson II (collectively, "Respondents"), on Mr. Jones's claim for breach of contract following a trial de novo.

II. Facts and Procedural Background

In January 2020, Mr. Jones agreed to provide music services at two separate church services at Impact Agape Ministries. Mr. Jones provided music for the two services, but was not paid for his services. The dispute is whether Mr. Jones was to be paid for these services.

Mr. Jones filed a small-claims actions against Respondents, claiming they owed him $200 for musical services he provided for the church in January of 2020. The small claims court set the matter for hearing. On the day of the hearing, the small claims court dismissed Mr. Jones's action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute because Mr. Jones did not appear at the hearing. Mr. Jones timely filed an application for trial de novo. The small claims court suspended the dismissal order, proceeded to trial, and entered judgment for Respondents.

III. Standard of Review

Our standard of review for claims originating in small claims court is the same as in other court-tried cases. Paull v. Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 890 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). We will affirm the small claims court's judgment "unless it misapplies or erroneously declares the law, or there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment, or the judgment is against the weight of the evidence." Jones v. Impact Agape Ministries, 633 S.W.3d 909, 910 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 530 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1975)) [hereinafter Jones I]. "We accept 'all evidence and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregarding all contrary evidence.'" Jones v. Leath &Sons, Inc., 653 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Glasgow Sch. Dist. v. Howard Cnty. Coroner, 633 S.W.3d 822, 828 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021)). "We defer 'to the [small claims] court on factual issues because it is in a better position not only to judge the credibility of witnesses and the persons directly, but also their sincerity and character and other trial intangibles which may not be completely revealed by the record.'" Id. (quoting Glasgow Sch. Dist., 633 S.W.3d at 828-29). We will affirm the small claims court's judgment if it is correct under any reasonable theory. Paull, 890 S.W.2d at 403.

IV. Discussion

Although our preference is to decide cases on their merits, deficient briefs hinder our ability to review the merits of the issues raised. Bush v. City of Cottleville, 411 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). Rule 84.04 sets forth the required contents and structure of briefs filed in Missouri appellate courts. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022); Rule 84.04.^[1] A brief's failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 provides a sufficient basis to dismiss the appeal. Bush, 411 S.W.3d at 864.

"Rule 84.04 is not merely designed to enforce hyper-technical procedures or to burden the parties on appeal." Hutcheson v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support Div., 656 S.W.3d 37, 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting T.G. v. D.W.H., 648 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022)) (internal quotation omitted). "Rather, the sound policy and purpose behind the rules is to 'ensure that the parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope of review ... which allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system.'" Id. (quoting Young v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 647 S.W.3d 73, 75 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022)). "Compliance with Rule 84.04 is essential to ensure that this Court retains its role as a neutral arbiter and avoids becoming an advocate for any party." Id. (quoting Young, 647 S.W.3d at 75) (internal citations omitted); see also Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978).

Although we sympathize with self-represented litigants and recognize the challenges they face when representing themselves, self-represented litigants are "subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs." Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 40 (quoting Indelicato v. McBride &Son Mgmt. Co., LLC, 646 S.W.3d 305, 307 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Our application of the rules stems not from lack of sympathy, but instead from a necessity for judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties." Id. at 41 (quoting Freeland v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 647 S.W.3d 22, 26 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although our preference is to decide cases on their merits where the argument is readily understandable, "[d]eficient briefing runs the risk of forcing this Court to assume the role of advocate by requiring us to sift through the legal record, reconstruct the statement of facts, and craft a legal argument on the appellant's behalf." Id. (quoting Freeland, 647 S.W.3d at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is our predicament here.

Mr. Jones filed his original brief on December 22, 2022. This Court provided notice that his brief failed to comply with Rules 84.04 and 84.06 and listed the specific violations. Although Mr. Jones amended his brief in an attempt to comply with the rules, the amended brief remains deficient.^[2] We only address the major issues that preclude us from reviewing the merits of this case.

A. Rule 84.04(d): Points Relied On

Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires the points relied on to: "(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) State concisely the legal 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." This Rule also states that points relied on must substantially emulate the following form: "The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error]." Compliance with this rule is vitally important as points relied on are essential to an appellant's brief and are intended "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." Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo. banc 1997)). "A deficient point relied on requires the respondent and appellate court to search the remainder of the brief to discern the appellant's assertion and, beyond causing a waste of resources, risks the appellant's argument being understood or framed in an unintended manner." Id.

Mr. Jones's first point relied on states:

The action of the trial court being challenged is that the court erred in having an unjust, incorrect decision in favor of the Respondents. The trial court should have determined the correct decision in favor of the Appellant based on Respondent C. Kenneth Haynes acknowledge and agreed to the truth and truthfulness that Respondent Hosea Jackson II deceived him about the oral contract with the Appellant. The legal reason is that the parties both agreed to prove three elements of quantum meruit. This legal reason supports the claim of judgment decision for justice, which is why the Court of Appeals should favor the Judgement [sic] decision in favor of the Appellant.

(internal citations omitted). First, this point does not substantially follow the format set out in Rule 84.04(d)(1). Second, this point does not identify the small claims court ruling or action that Mr. Jones is challenging, stating only the "unjust, incorrect decision in favor of Respondents." Were this Court to attempt to discern the specific decision that is being challenged, we presume Mr. Jones is referring to the judgment as a whole. Third, this point does not concisely state the legal reasons for Mr. Jones's claim of reversible error. Finally, this point does not explain why, in the context of this case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

Mr. Jones's second point relied on states:

The action of the trial court being challenged is that the court erred in having an unjust, incorrect decision in favor of the Respondents. Observing all things in the trial court. The trial court erred in favor decision exposes [sic] that the trial court disregarded, did not rely on, or depend on and acknowledge the Appellant proving all the elements of the legal doctrine of quantum meruit in Missouri[:] (1) The Appellant provided professional musical services benefit to the Respondents at their acquiescence or request[;] (2) The Respondents retained or accepted that benefit. The Appellant's Minister of Music musical services had a reasonable value[;] (3) The Appellant expected reasonable pay from the Respondents. They have failed and refuse to pay the reasonable value of the Minister of Music musical services despite the demand of the Appellant ultimately satisfying and proving all the elements in the legal doctrine of

...