King v. King, ED 105354

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Lisa P. Page, Presiding Judge
• Citation: 548 S.W.3d 440
• Parties: Joseph Ashton KING, Appellant, v. Caroline Hilton KING, Respondent.
• Docket Number: ED 105354
• Decision Date: 24 April 2018

548 S.W.3d 440

Joseph Ashton KING, Appellant,
v.
Caroline Hilton KING, Respondent.

ED 105354

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: April 24, 2018

Joseph A. King, 16912 Kingstowne Place Dr., Wildwood, MO 63011, pro se.

William P. Hogan, William P. Hogan, LLC, 1900 Locust Street, Suite 302, St. Louis, MO 63103, for respondent.

OPINION

Lisa P. Page, Presiding Judge

Joseph Ashton King ("Husband") appeals the trial court's dissolution judgment of his marriage to Caroline Hilton King ("Wife"). We dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

The marriage of the parties was dissolved in late 2016. Following numerous post judgment pleadings and exhibits, Husband filed the present appeal.

548 S.W.3d 442

DISCUSSION

Husband, acting pro se , filed a brief raising seven points on appeal. In addition to her response brief, Wife has filed a motion to strike the legal file and brief and to dismiss Husband’s appeal. In her motion, Wife alleges numerous violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 81.12 and 84.04.

The rules for appellate briefing set forth in Rule 84.04 are mandatory. Rockwell v. Wong , 415 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (citing Wong v. Wong , 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ). Compliance with the requirements is necessary to ensure we do not become an advocate by inferring facts and arguments an appellant fails to set forth. Id. at 806. The failure to, at least substantially, comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for dismissal. Id. In the interest of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties, pro se appellants like Husband are required to comply with the rules, including Rule 84.04. Dubroc v. Dubroc , 537 S.W.3d 369, 370-71 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). We may exercise our discretion to review briefs which suffer from violations of Rule 84.04. However, Husband’s brief simply contains too many deficiencies and violations of Rule 84.04 for meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

A. Statement of Facts

Pursuant to Rule 84.04(c), Husband was required to include a "fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." In addition, Rule 84.04(c) requires an appellant to cite the specific page reference to the "relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits."

Husband’s approximately fifteen-page statement of facts contains a significant amount of argument concerning the facts underlying the dissolution. He makes statements of "fact" concerning Wife’s parenting, her alleged alienation of him and her resources from her "wealthy parents." Many of these claims are without citation to the record or include citations to documents filed after the judgment of dissolution, conflating dissolution judgment issues properly before this court with post-dissolution matters not subject to appellate review at this time. In addition, Husband arbitrarily makes several bald assertions that the court’s decisions were made "improvidently."¹ The lengthy, argumentative statement of facts fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c).

B. Points Relied On

Similar to the statement of facts, Husband’s points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d), which requires Husband to

548 S.W.3d 443

identify the trial...