Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, ED 109644

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtJohn P. Torbitzky, J.
Citation636 S.W.3d 622
Parties Sofia MURPHREE, Individually and as Next Friend of Breanna Murphree-Dasch, a Minor, Appellants, v. LAKESHORE ESTATES, LLC, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. ED 109644,ED 109644
Decision Date14 December 2021

636 S.W.3d 622

Sofia MURPHREE, Individually and as Next Friend of Breanna Murphree-Dasch, a Minor, Appellants,
v.
LAKESHORE ESTATES, LLC, Respondent.

No. ED 109644

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: December 14, 2021


Nicholas G. Higgins, A & L Licker Law Firm, 1861 Sherman Road, St. Charles, MO 63303, for appellants.

Chris Lang, Michael S. Hamlin, 1795 Clarkson Rd., Suite 230, Chesterfield, MO 63017, for respondent.

OPINION

John P. Torbitzky, J.

Sofia Murphree, individually and as next friend of Breanna Murphree-Dasch, ("Appellants") appeals from the circuit court's judgment granting Respondent Lakeshore Estates, LLC's motion to set aside a default judgment. Each of Appellants’ four points on appeal falls significantly short of the minimum standards set by Rule 84.04.1 These deficiencies prevent this Court from engaging in meaningful review of the appeal. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

Appellants’ Briefing Deficiencies

Rule 84.04 sets forth the minimum requirements for appellate briefing. Compliance with those requirements is mandatory. Bennett v. Taylor , 615 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). An appellant must adhere to the rules of appellate procedure

636 S.W.3d 624

in order for this Court to review the appeal. See Burgan v. Newman , 618 S.W.3d 712, 714 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). "Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure is a proper ground for dismissing an appeal." Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc. , 211 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007).

It is with great hesitation that we dismiss an appellant's brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04. "Our preference is to decide an appeal on the merits where disposition is not hampered by rule violations and the argument is readily understandable." Bennett , 615 S.W.3d at 98. While this Court has the discretion to review a noncompliant brief, we will do so only when "we can ascertain the gist of an appellant's arguments, notwithstanding minor shortcomings in briefing." Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (emphasis added). However, when the deficiencies affect our ability to understand and adequately address the claims of error, the brief preserves nothing for review. Hamilton v. Archer , 545 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).

Rule 84.04 is not merely a rule of technicalities. State v. Myers , 619 S.W.3d 578, 585 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Instead, it serves several necessary functions. Importantly, compliance with Rule 84.04 ensures that the opposing party is adequately informed of the precise matters in contention and informs this Court of the issues for review. Id. This permits this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues before it and ensures that opposing positions will have adequate representation, which is essential to our adversary system.

Perhaps more importantly, an appellant's compliance with Rule 84.04 is necessary to ensure that this Court retains its role as a neutral arbiter. Deficient 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. Burgan , 618 S.W.3d at 714-15. This requires this Court to speculate as to the facts and arguments that may have been asserted. Id. at 714. If this Court cannot reach the merits without "supplementing the appellant's legal arguments," then nothing has been preserved for review. Carmen v. Olsen , 611 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020).

Here, numerous deficiencies in Appellants’ brief make it impossible for this Court to meaningfully review the case. First,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., ED 109959
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 10, 2022
    ...set forth in Rule 84.04. "Rule 84.04 sets forth the minimum requirements for appellate briefing." Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (citing Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)). "Compliance with those rules is necessary 'to en......
  • Starks v. State, ED 109555
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 14, 2021
    ...Bates knew the length of his sentence was completely at the judge's discretion and that no particular sentence was promised." Id. at 554.636 S.W.3d 622 A review of the entire record here indicates that the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Starks knowingly and voluntaril......
  • M.B. v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., ED110291
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 9, 2022
    ...points relied on do not conform with Rule 84.04(d)(1) and thus preserve nothing for review. See Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). Rule 84.04(d)(1) provides that a point on appeal must: "(A) Identify the trial court ruli......
  • Young v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., ED109900
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 28, 2022
    ...and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope of review. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). This information allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper functioni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., ED 109959
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 10, 2022
    ...set forth in Rule 84.04. "Rule 84.04 sets forth the minimum requirements for appellate briefing." Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (citing Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)). "Compliance with those rules is necessary 'to en......
  • Starks v. State, ED 109555
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 14, 2021
    ...Bates knew the length of his sentence was completely at the judge's discretion and that no particular sentence was promised." Id. at 554.636 S.W.3d 622 A review of the entire record here indicates that the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Starks knowingly and voluntaril......
  • Surgery Ctr. Partners, LLC v. Mondelez Int'l, Inc., ED 109776
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 5, 2022
    ...applicable standard of review." This information is "essential to this Court's review of the case." Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Appellants include the standard of review, but make no concise statement informing the Court whether the issues ar......
  • M.B. v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., ED110291
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 9, 2022
    ...points relied on do not conform with Rule 84.04(d)(1) and thus preserve nothing for review. See Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). Rule 84.04(d)(1) provides that a point on appeal must: "(A) Identify the trial court ruli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT