State ex rel. Morgan v. Okoye, No. WD 63274.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtRobert G. Ulrich
Citation141 S.W.3d 410
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, ex rel. Shannon L. MORGAN by DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Respondent, v. Patrick E. OKOYE, Appellant Pro Se, Shanna R. Morgan, Plaintiff.
Decision Date06 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. WD 63274.
141 S.W.3d 410
STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Shannon L. MORGAN by DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Respondent,
v.
Patrick E. OKOYE, Appellant Pro Se,
Shanna R. Morgan, Plaintiff.
No. WD 63274.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
July 6, 2004.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 31, 2004.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Gregory Burnett Gillis, J.

[141 S.W.3d 411]

Patrick E. Okoye, Kansas City, pro se.

Linda J. King-Steele, Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before ROBERT G. ULRICH, P.J., HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN and EDWIN H. SMITH.

ROBERT G. ULRICH, Presiding Judge.


Patrick Okoye appeals the trial court's judgment establishing paternity and child support. Mr. Okoye was declared to be the father of the minor child, Shannon Morgan, and ordered to pay child support in the amount of $942 per month. He claims that the trial court erred in calculating the child support amount. The appeal is dismissed.

In April 2002, the State of Missouri, Division of Child Support Enforcement, filed its petition against Mr. Okoye to establish paternity, child support, and medical support for the minor child. Mr. Okoye filed an answer requesting genetic testing. Following trial, the trial court entered its judgment finding, among other things, that the presumed correct child support amount as calculated pursuant to section 452.340.8, RSMo 2000, Rule 88.01, and Form 14 is $942 and such amount is not rebutted as unjust or inappropriate. This appeal by Mr. Okoye followed.

Mr. Okoye's first brief on appeal was stricken. After he filed his amended brief, the State filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion to strike Mr. Okoye's brief asserting that Mr. Okoye's brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04 and that Mr. Okoye failed to file a complete record on appeal. The motion was taken with the case.

As a pro se litigant, Mr. Okoye is bound by the same rules of procedure as a party represented by a licensed attorney and is not entitled to indulgences he would not have received if represented by counsel. Gossett v. Gossett, 98 S.W.3d 899, 900 (Mo.App. W.D.2003); Manning v. Fedotin, 64 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (quoting Belisle v. City of Senath, 974 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Mo.App. S.D.1998)). "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'." Manning, 64 S.W.3d at 846...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • In re Care and Treatment of Johnson, No. 26023.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 31, 2005
    ...have been presented below which is not reflected by the record." State ex rel. Morgan ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Okoye, 141 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Mo.App.2004). Rule 81.12(a) states that "[t]he record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary ......
  • Hadley v. Burton, No. 28405.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 30, 2008
    ...the property description at the summary judgment stage of the proceeding leaves this Court nothing to review on appeal. KC Excavating, 141 S.W.3d at 410; American Property Maintenance, 59 S.W.3d at 645. Therefore the court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Hadley or in den......
  • Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb, No. SD 29866.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 23, 2009
    ...judicial economy and fairness to all parties.'" Id. (quoting State ex rel. Morgan ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Okoye, 141 S.W.3d 410, 411 (Mo. App.2004)). "As such, Appellant is required to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04" as well ......
  • Richard v. Properties, No. SD 31166.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 13, 2011
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • In re Care and Treatment of Johnson, No. 26023.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 31, 2005
    ...have been presented below which is not reflected by the record." State ex rel. Morgan ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Okoye, 141 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Mo.App.2004). Rule 81.12(a) states that "[t]he record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary ......
  • Hadley v. Burton, No. 28405.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 30, 2008
    ...the property description at the summary judgment stage of the proceeding leaves this Court nothing to review on appeal. KC Excavating, 141 S.W.3d at 410; American Property Maintenance, 59 S.W.3d at 645. Therefore the court did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Hadley or in den......
  • Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb, No. SD 29866.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 23, 2009
    ...judicial economy and fairness to all parties.'" Id. (quoting State ex rel. Morgan ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Okoye, 141 S.W.3d 410, 411 (Mo. App.2004)). "As such, Appellant is required to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04" as well ......
  • Richard v. Properties, No. SD 31166.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 13, 2011
    ...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 ......
  • 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