Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 07 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. SD 32536.,SD 32536.
• Citation: 413 S.W.3d 348
• Parties: SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Randall MITCHELL, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

413 S.W.3d 348

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Randall MITCHELL, Defendant–Appellant.

No. SD 32536.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division Two.

Nov. 7, 2013.

[413 S.W.3d 349]

Randall Mitchell, Stockton, MO, Appellant acting Pro Se.

Scott E. Bellm, Springfield, MO, for Respondent.

DON E. BURRELL, J.

Randall Mitchell (“Appellant”), who appears pro se, appeals the judgment resulting from a petition for declaratory judgment filed by Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. (“Insurer”) concerning the payment of insurance proceeds for Appellant's damaged 2007 Ford F–150 truck (“the truck”). Appellant's amended brief presents two points.

His first point contends “[t]he trial court committed plain error and manifest injustice by forcing [A]ppellant to under subpoena to [sic] appear [and] participate in a settlement conference [Appellant] never requested to participate in and [Appellant] was the only party in attendance.” It further alleges that the trial court “coerce[d] and intimidate[d A]ppellant to participate in this settlement conference” and “[t]he trial court committed manifest injustice by entering a favorable judgment for [Insurer without Insurer] entering any

[413 S.W.3d 350]

evidence to sustain count one of [its] petition.” Appellant's second point contends “[t]he trial court committed plain error and manifest injustice” in denying Appellant the “right to trial and the right to trial by jury.”

Insurer filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal (which we took with the appeal), and Insurer makes a similar request in its brief, arguing that nothing is preserved for appellate review due to Appellant's multiple violations of the briefing rules. The argument has merit. Because the deficiencies of Appellant's brief are so serious that they preclude any impartial analysis of his complaints, we must dismiss his appeal.

Background

The truck, insured by Insurer, was severely damaged in a May 2008 accident. Insurer offered to pay Appellant what it believed to be the full value of the truck immediately prior to the accident (less Appellant's deductible) in exchange for Appellant's surrender of the truck and its title. Alternatively, Insurer offered to pay Appellant a lesser amount, and Appellant “would be allowed to keep the truck.” The lesser amount was reached by subtracting out what Insurer believed to be the value of the truck in its post-accident condition. Appellant rejected both settlement offers.

In February 2012, Insurer filed its petition seeking a judicial declaration of the value of the truck both before and after the accident, the amount owed to Appellant “to compensate him for the damage to [the] truck[,]” which party would own the truck, and which party would be required to complete “necessary documents pertaining to the future ownership of the [truck.]” ¹ Appellant's pro se “AMENDED ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT” stated that he had “no issue with the valuation” made by Insurer, and he agreed that the “post[-a]ccident” value of the truck was $3,000. At the same time, he refused the offer wherein he would keep the truck with a reduced payment, and he “disagree[d] with the terms under which [Insurer] ha[d] offered to pay him.” Appellant contended that Insurer “has set terms whereby [Appellant] would not be compensated the last $3[,]000.00 until such time as [Insurer] salvaged [Appellant's truck].” Appellant further agreed in his answer that:

A. The current adjusted [b]alance of the [truck] is $18,329.96.

B. That the [s]alvage of [c]urrent value is $3[,]000.00[.]

C. The amount due to [Appellant] is $18,329.96[.]

D. Upon payment of $18,329.96 [Insurer] will take possession, subject to the [trial c]ourt[']s [o]rder on the [m]otion [t]o [p]reserve [e]vidence.

E. That [Insurer], upon payment of a full loss accident, shall apply for and [o]btain a salvage title.

The docket reflects that in July 2012, Appellant filed a “MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.” That motion is not included in the legal file, but Insurer's response to the motion is included. It states that “[n]o basis whatsoever is stated in [Appellant's] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and as a result, it is extremely difficult for [Insurer's] counsel to respond to the [m]otion.” It went on to ask the trial court to deny Appellant's motion. Nothing in the record indicates that the motion was either granted or denied.

[413 S.W.3d 351]

After a highly unusual proceeding before the trial court that is difficult to characterize,² the trial court entered the judgment Appellant now appeals. That December 26, 2012 judgment found that “the adjusted cash value of the vehicle before the accident” was $18,329.96, and it provided that this sum would be paid from the registry of the court to Appellant in two installments. All but $3,000—the trial court's determination of the current salvage value of the truck—was to be paid to Appellant immediately, and the balance would “be paid to [Appellant] upon transfer of possession of the [truck] to [Insurer].” Appellant was also “ordered to cooperate with [Insurer] and execute any necessary paperwork required.” The judgment further provided that “[s]hould [Appellant] fail to finalize the transfer of possession of the [truck] to [Insurer] within 45 days, the ownership of the [truck] reverts to [Appellant], and the balance of [$3,000.00] shall be returned to [Insurer].”

Appellant's Briefing Deficiencies Require Dismissal of the Appeal

“We are mindful of the problems that a pro se litigant faces; however, judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitate that we do not grant a pro se appellant preferential treatment with regard to complying with the rules of appellate procedure.” Carlisle v. Rainbow Connection, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 583, 584–85 (Mo.App.E.D.2009). “Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with Supreme Court rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs.” Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 742 (Mo.App.E.D.2002).³

[413 S.W.3d 352]

“Compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.” Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo.App.W.D.2004). “A party's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review and is insufficient to invoke our authority to hear the case.” FIA Card Servs., NA. v. Hayes, 339 S.W.3d 515, 517 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). Thus, “[t]he failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d) warrants dismissal of the appeal.” Bridges, 146 S.W.3d at...