Libberton v. Phillips
Decision Date | 12 July 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 22357,22357 |
Citation | 995 S.W.2d 66 |
Parties | Harold LIBBERTON and James Libberton, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Donald D. PHILLIPS, Jr., Frankie Lee Thomas, Carol K. Fox, and Donald R. Fox, Defendants-Respondents, Michael Libberton, Non-Party-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellant, pro se.
Joseph W. Rigler, Williams, Robinson, White, Rigler & Parker, PC, Rolla, for Respondents Libberton.
Dana L. Frese, Carson & Coil, PC, Jefferson City, for Respondent.
No attorneys, for Respondents Phillips and Thomas.
Eloys Libberton died from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Two of her sons, Harold and James Libberton, brought a suit for Eloys's wrongful death. This suit was settled for $50,000. Appellant Michael Libberton, another of Eloys's sons, appeals a judgment that awarded all of the wrongful death proceeds to Harold and James Libberton. 1 We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant appeals pro se. Some of the respondents ask us to dismiss the appeal because Appellant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.
We reproduce Appellant's "brief" in its entirety (except for the caption page).
Appellant is entitled to proceed pro se. However, in doing so he is bound "by the same rules of procedure as those admitted to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence [he] would not have received if represented by counsel." Johnson v. St. Mary's Health Center, 738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App.1987).
Review of Appellant's brief shows flagrant violations of Rule 84.04(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (i). Appellant's brief fails to contain:
1. A detailed table of contents. Rule 84.04(a)(1).
2. A jurisdictional statement. Rule 84.04(a)(2) and (b).
3. A statement of facts relevant to the questions for determination. Rule 84.04(a)(3) and (c).
4. Points relied on. Rule 84.04(a)(4) and (d).
5. Citations of authority. Rule 84.04(d)(5)
6. An argument. Rule 84.04(a)(5) and (e).
7. Specific page references to the legal file or transcript. Rule 84.04(i).
As shown, Appellant's brief falls woefully short of any reasonable compliance with Rule 84.04. "A failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review." Burton v. Tucker, 937 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Mo.App.1997). Allegations of error not properly briefed "shall not be considered in any civil appeal." Rule 84.13(a).
In State ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Hinojos, 993 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Mo.App.S.D.1999), Burton, 937 S.W.2d 775, and State v. Kurt, 867 S.W.2d 675 (Mo.App.1993), appeals were dismissed for similar Rule 84.04 violations. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
1 The record reflects that Appellant was within the class of persons entitled to sue for wrongful death of Eloys Libberton, and his being joined...
To continue reading
Request your trial