Mace v. Daye
| Decision Date | 25 April 2000 |
| Citation | 17 S.W.3d 154 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) Perry Jay Mace, Appellant, v. Evelyn Marie (Mace) Daye, Respondent. WD56571 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Cary George Augustine
Counsel for Appellant: Perry Mace, Pro Se
Opinion Summary: Perry Mace appeals from the circuit court's denial of his motion for re-hearing on the family court commissioner's order refusing to allow Mr. Mace to transfer the parties two minor children to another school district. He also appeals from the trial court's modification of child custody, transferring primary physical custody of the children from Mr. Mace to their mother, Evelyn Daye, and the trial court's denial of his motion for sole custody of the children.
Division Two holds: Mr. Mace's pro se brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 because: (1) each point relied on sets out only abstract conclusions and statements of law without showing how they relate to any action or ruling of the court, (2) each point also fails to state the wherein and why the trial court's ruling is claimed to be erroneous, and (3) two of the points fail to identify the trial court ruling or action being challenged.
Perry Mace appeals from the circuit court's denial of his motion for re-hearing on the family court commissioner's order refusing to allow Mr. Mace to transfer the parties two minor children to another school district. He also appeals from the judgment of the circuit court modifying its decree of dissolution by ordering a change of primary physical custody of the two minor children from Mr. Mace to their mother, Evelyn Daye, and denying his motion for sole custody of the children. The appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Mace appeals pro se. Pro se appellants are bound by the same rules of procedure as appellants represented by licensed attorneys and are not entitled to preferential treatment regarding compliance with procedural rules such as Rule 84.04. Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Violations of the rules of appellate procedure, and specifically Rule 84.04, constitute grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal. Id.
Rule 84.04 sets forth the requirements for filing briefs with appellate courts. Estate of Dean v. Morris, 963 S.W.2d 461, 466 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). It requires "[w]here the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall: (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." Id.; Rule 84.04(d)(1). "Abstract statements of law, standing alone, do not comply with this rule." Rule 84.04(d)(4). The purpose of the briefing requirements regarding points relied on is to give "notice to the party opponent of the precise matters, which must be contended with and answered" and "to inform the court of the issues presented for resolution." Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978). If the appellate court must search the argument portion of the brief or the record on appeal to determine or clarify the nature of the asserted claims, the court may interpret the claims differently than the opponent or differently than was intended by the party asserting the claim. Id. The function of the appellate court is to examine asserted trial court error, not to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal. Id. Where a brief fails to comply with the applicable rules and does not sufficiently advise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, "the court is left with the dilemma of deciding that case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency." Id. Courts should not be asked or expected to assume such a role. Id. In addition to being inherently unfair to the other party on appeal, it is unfair to parties in other cases awaiting disposition because it takes from them appellate time and resources which should be devoted to expeditious resolution of their appeals. Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 686.
Mr. Mace presents three points relied on in his brief:
Point I: The trial court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerald M. v. Dep't of Child Safety
...court is to examine asserted trial-court error, not to serve as advocate for any party on appeal.'"), quoting Mace v. Daye, 17 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000); Milam v. Milam, 101 Ariz. 323, 326, 419 P.2d 502, 505 (1966) ("The members of this Court are not advocates and their obligation......
-
State v. Taylor
...violate Rule 84.04 are not required to be reviewed by this Court, we have chosen to review Defendant's points ex gratia. Mace v. Daye, 17 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Mo.App.2000). 3. Poyner was later dismissed by the trial court because if his relationship with 4. In Kelley, a venireperson admitted th......
- State v. Dismang
-
Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc.
...the Stickleys' brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c), (d), (e), and (i), it presents nothing for appellate review. Mace v. Daye, 17 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). Accordingly, Auto Credit's motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to comply with Rule 84.04 is sustained. The appeal......