Richard v. Properties, SD 31166.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Citation: 350 S.W.3d 469
• Docket Number: No. SD 31166.,SD 31166.
• Parties: Shirley RICHARD, Claimant–Appellant,v.L & S LANGCO PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Employer–Respondent,andMissouri Division of Employment Security, Respondent–Respondent.
• Decision Date: 13 October 2011

350 S.W.3d 469

Shirley RICHARD, Claimant–Appellant,
v.
L & S LANGCO PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Employer–Respondent,andMissouri Division of Employment Security, Respondent–Respondent.

No. SD 31166.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Oct. 13, 2011.

[350 S.W.3d 470]

Shirley Richard, Advance, Appellant Acting pro se.Wade M. Schuster, Scott City, (no brief filed), for Employer–Respondent.Leah Williamson, Jefferson City, for Missouri Division of Employment Security.

[350 S.W.3d 471]

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge.

Shirley Richard (“Claimant”) appeals from the denial of unemployment benefits by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission found that Claimant voluntarily quit without good cause; the finding is supported by competent and substantial evidence based on the whole record and, accordingly, we affirm.

Initially, we shall address the request made by the Missouri Division of Employment Security (“the Division”) and L & S Langco Properties, LLC (“Employer”),¹ collectively Respondents, to dismiss Claimant's appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04.² We agree that Claimant, who appeals pro se, presented a woefully inadequate brief. Claimant is entitled to bring her claim without legal representation, but, in doing so, “is bound by the same rules of procedure as those admitted to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence she would not have received if represented by counsel.” Johnson v. St. Mary's Health Ctr., 738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App. E.D.1987). “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. S.D.1997). “ ‘This principal is not grounded in a lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties.’ ” Moran v. Mason, 236 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (quoting State ex rel. Morgan ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Okoye, 141 S.W.3d 410, 411 (Mo.App. W.D.2004)). As such, Claimant is required to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, as well as the other Missouri Court Rules. Id.

Claimant's statement of facts in the instant case is argumentative, disorganized, and biased, in violation of Rule 84.04(c), which requires a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument. Similarly, Claimant's point relied on, as set forth below, is unclear, argumentative, disorganized and in violation of Rule 84.04(d):

Points Relied On

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission erred, because it failed to take into consideration claimant's admitted quitting with “good cause”. (Constructive Discharge)

The Commission failed to determine whether or not claimant's quitting was reasonable and in good faith in light of the facts and circumstances of her case.

The [C]ommission was obligated to make unequivocal, affirmative findings of the facts. Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corporation v. Armstrong, 620 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Mo.App.1981) “The order of the commission is subject to review by the courts to determine whether it is ‘authorized by law’ and whether it is ‘supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record ’ Mo. Const. art. V, § 18.” Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 596 S.W.2d 413, 417 (Mo. banc 1980).

The commission failed to meet its obligation.

The Commission allowed new evidence by the employer that wasn't allowed in the Appeal's Tribunal Decision. (COYNE v. CARGILL INC )

[350 S.W.3d 472]

Furthermore, Claimant also includes facts which are not in the record and does not include references to the record for factual assertions. Although Claimant bases her entire argument on the factual disputes of her claim, the factual issues must be resolved in favor of the Commission's decision. Section 288.210.³ Respondent, to its credit, responds to a possible issue which we can address in this appeal, i.e., whether the Commission erred in denying unemployment benefits to Claimant because she voluntarily quit without good cause by failing to act in good faith and reasonably under the circumstances.

Section...