Steiner v. Rolfes
Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. SD 36454,SD 36454 |
Citation | 602 S.W.3d 313 |
Parties | Neil B. STEINER, and Deborah G. Steiner, Appellants, v. Robert ROLFES, and Susan Rolfes, Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellants Pro Se: Neil and Deborah Steiner, of Blue Springs, Missouri.
Respondents’ Attorneys: Shawn T. Briner and Matthew J. Williams, of Chesterfield, Missouri.
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.
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.
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. Id. at 352.
In this appeal, the following deficiencies materially impede impartial review.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Haneline
... ... adequate point relied on. Calzone v. Maries Cnty ... Comm'n , 648 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) ... (citing Steiner v. Rolfes , 602 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo ... App. S.D. 2020)) ... Mr ... Haneline's Point One states as follows: ... ...
-
Calzone v. Maries Cnty. Comm'n
...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 claim of e......
-
Franco v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs.
... ... reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of ... reversible error ].'" ... Steiner v. Rolfes, 602 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo. App ... S.D. 2020). The following is a verbatim recitation ... of Appellant's points: ... I ... ...