Lazarus v. Jacob
Decision Date | 09 March 2020 |
Docket Number | No. SD 36060,SD 36060 |
Parties | In re the Marriage of: Janus LAZARUS, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Juliana JACOB, Respondent/Respondent, and Silvia Imanda Lazarus, Third-Party Respondent/Respondent, Richard Imanda Lazarus, Third-Party Respondent/Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellant’s Attorney: Charles S. Gensio, of Joplin, Missouri.
Respondent Jacob’s Attorney: Emily A. Taylor, of Joplin, Missouri.
Richard Imanda Lazarus ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court’s "Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" in five points relied on. Juliana Jacob ("Respondent")1 filed a motion to dismiss the appeal due to Rule 84.042 violations and other briefing deficiencies in Appellant’s brief. We sustain the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Appellant and Silvia Imanda Lazarus ("Daughter"), were born of the marriage between Janus Lazarus ("Father"), and Respondent. Respondent and Father are originally from Indonesia, and came to the United States in 1998. The couple became citizens in 2012. Father controlled all the finances due to Respondent’s limited command of the English language. Father and Respondent jointly owned three pieces of real estate in Jasper County. In January 2014, all three pieces of real estate were conveyed to Appellant and Sister. Father filed for divorce in July 2015. In March 2017, Respondent filed a motion to add Appellant and Sister as third parties to the dissolution action, alleging the transfers of the three pieces of real estate were fraudulent and with the intent to deprive Respondent of her marital rights. The trial court sustained the motion.
The trial court entered its "Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" on March 12, 2019. The trial court found that the transfers of ownership to Appellant and Sister were in fraud of Respondent’s marital rights, and ordered Appellant and Sister to convey the three pieces of marital real estate back to Father and/or Mother. This appeal followed.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s judgment in five points relied on, to-wit:
In reviewing the judgment from a bench-tried case, we affirm unless an appellant successfully demonstrates that the judgment: (1) is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) is against the weight of the evidence, or (3) erroneously declares or applies the law. Archdekin v. Archdekin , 562 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Mo. banc 2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
However, our review is dependent on beginning with an appropriate brief filed by Appellant.
Rule 84.04(c) requires that (Emphasis added). This requirement reflects the controlling principle of review that "[a]n appellant may not simply recount his or her version of the events, but is required to provide a statement of the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment."3 Rather, "[t]he function of the appellant’s brief is to explain to the court why, despite the evidence seemingly favorable to the respondent, the law requires that appellant must prevail." Hoer v. Small , 1 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).
In her "Motion to Strike Appellant’s Brief and Dismiss Appeal," Respondent accurately recounts fourteen instances where Appellant’s Statement of Facts fails to provide specific citations to the record, or provides citations to the record that do not support the fact asserted. Appellant fails to effectively contest these observations.
Appellant’s Statement of Facts is not fair in that it does not present matters in the light most favorable to the judgment—rather, facts favorable to the outcome (which we consider) are omitted, while facts favorable to Appellant (which we exclude and ignore) are included. Our courts have observed that this manner of failure is "often viewed" as an admission that if all (and only) the relevant facts were before the reviewing court, "the appellant would surely lose." Kenneth Bell and NEZ, Inc. v. Baldwin Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. , 561 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Rule 84.04(d)(1), which sets out the requirements for an appellant’s points relied on, is explicit and demonstrative:
"Given that a template is specifically provided for in Rule 84.04(d)(1), appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied on." Scott v. King , 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
Here, only Appellant’s first point (of five asserted on appeal) reflects even an attempt at compliance with Rule 84.04(d)(1). Even there, the analytical defects resulting from Appellant’s non-compliance with Rule 84.04 doom his challenge. Appellant’s first point challenges that "[t]he trial court erred" in ordering Appellant and Sister "to reconvey the Joplin real estate to [Father] and [Respondent] on [Respondent]’s fraudulent transfer claim," because "the court’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence," and because the trial court "erroneously applied the law." Against the weight of the evidence and erroneous application of the law are separate challenges, and must be presented in separate points to be preserved for appellate review. Ivie v. Smith , 439 S.W.3d 189, 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014). Appellant’s first point would fail on this basis alone.
Appellant’s first point next proceeds to assert that "the evidence presented at trial clearly and convincingly established that the transfers were": (1) "not made for any improper purpose," (2) "not made with lack of consideration," (3) "not made following any representation that they would not be effective until death," (4) "not made in close proximity to the filing of the dissolution action," (5) "not made in an effort to defraud Respondent," and (6) "that no conspiracy existed amongst the parties[.]" Appellant also attempts to tack on yet another alternative claim of reversible error at the tail end of this point, to wit: "or an essential element of the finding of the court was never pled nor tried by consent." (Emphasis added). This point is clearly multifarious—as such, it "does not comply with Rule 84.04, and ... preserves nothing for review." Simmons v. McCulloch , 501 S.W.3d 14, 16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (indicating that a point is multifarious where the substance of the point is reflected in "sub-points alleging specific examples of the trial court’s abuse of discretion.").
Rule 84.04(e) mandates that "[f]or each claim of error, the argument shall also include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it was preserved[.]" Appellant fails to comply with this requirement. Rule 84.04(e) further directs that "[a]ll factual assertions in the argument shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e. , legal file, transcript, or exhibits." Appellant makes sporadic efforts at compliance with this requirement, but fails to do so in the vast majority of instances.
Moreover, the underlying...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
May v. Golden Partners, Inc.
...Missouri Ozarks Radio, Network, Inc. v. Baugh , 598 S.W.3d 154, 170 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (conversion); Lazarus v. Jacob , 597 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (fraudulent transfer); Interest of S.S. , 595 S.W.3d 584, 587 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (termination of parental rights); Taylor v. T......
-
Le v. Le
... ... the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in the ... proposition. Lazarus v. Jacob , 597 S.W.3d 389, 395 ... (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). Mother argues Father failed to properly ... marshal all evidence in the record ... ...
-
Le v. Le
... ... the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in the ... proposition. Lazarus v. Jacob , 597 S.W.3d 389, 395 ... (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). Mother argues Father failed to properly ... marshal all evidence in the record ... ...
-
Le v. Le
...in probative value, considered in the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in the proposition. Lazarus v. Jacob , 597 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). Mother argues Father failed to properly marshal all evidence in the record favorable to the judgment, instead "cher......