Steiner v. Rolfes, SD 36454
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 602 S.W.3d 313 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 36454,SD 36454 |
| Parties | Neil B. STEINER, and Deborah G. Steiner, Appellants, v. Robert ROLFES, and Susan Rolfes, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
602 S.W.3d 313
Neil B. STEINER, and Deborah G. Steiner, Appellants,
v.
Robert ROLFES, and Susan Rolfes, Respondents.
No. SD 36454
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
Filed: May 27, 2020
Appellants Pro Se: Neil and Deborah Steiner, of Blue Springs, Missouri.
Respondents’ Attorneys: Shawn T. Briner and Matthew J. Williams, of Chesterfield, Missouri.
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.
Neil B. Steiner and Deborah G. Steiner, ("the Steiners"), pro se appellants, appeal from the trial court's "Judgment of Dismissal," granting a motion, filed by Robert and Susan Rolfes ("the Rolfes"), to dismiss the Steiners’ petition. On appeal, the Rolfes filed a motion to dismiss the Steiners’ appeal due to Rule 84.041 violations and other briefing deficiencies. We sustain the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
The Steiners filed a petition against the Rolfes alleging, in relevant part, that the Steiners had the right to possession of certain real estate, and personal property located thereon, in Osage Beach, Missouri. The Rolfes filed a motion to dismiss the Steiners’ petition, which the trial court granted in its Judgment of Dismissal on November 21, 2019. This appeal followed.
Governing Principles of Review and Rule 84.04
This Court dismissed a previous appeal from the Steiners for Rule 84.04 briefing violations. Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. v. Steiner , 564 S.W.3d 351 (Mo.App. S.D. 2018). The same fatal deficiencies now appear in the Steiners’ brief before us. "Pro se litigants are required to follow the same appellate rules as parties represented by lawyers. While we recognize the challenges facing pro se litigants, we cannot bend those rules to benefit non-lawyers." Id. at 352.
In this appeal, the following deficiencies materially impede impartial review.
• Statement of Facts : Rule 84.04(a)(3)&(c) requires the presentation of a "statement of facts," which "shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calzone v. Maries Cnty. Comm'n, SD 37343
...failing to submit adequate points relied on given that a template is specifically provided for in Rule 84.04(d)(1).9 Steiner v. Rolfes , 602 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). While the Calzones’ point 1 identifies the challenged trial court action and states the legal reasons for the cl......
-
Calzone v. Maries Cnty. Comm'n, SD37343
...failing to submit adequate points relied on given that a template is specifically provided for in Rule 84.04(d)(1).[9] Steiner v. Rolfes, 602 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). While the Calzones' point 1 identifies the challenged trial court action and states the legal reasons for the c......