Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 July 2001
• Docket Number: WD58500
• Citation: 53 S.W.3d 560
• Parties: Kathy and David Stickley, Appellants v. Auto Credit, Inc., Respondent. WD58500 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Kathy and David Stickley, Appellants v Auto Credit, Inc., Respondent

WD58500

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

07/17/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jon Reginald Gray

Counsel for Appellant: James S. Formby

Counsel for Respondent: Kevin E. Glynn

Opinion Summary: Cathy and David Stickley appeal the summary judgment of the circuit court entered in favor of the respondent, Auto Credit, Inc., and against the Stickleys as it relates to both Auto Credit's action for unlawful detainer and the Stickleys' counter-claims for fraud, trover and conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The claims arose out of the sale and purchase of an automobile from Auto Credit to the Stickleys without a proper assignment of certificate of title. Auto Credit filed a motion to dismiss the Stickleys' appeal for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04. The motion was ordered taken with the case.

Auto Credit's motion to dismiss the Stickleys' appeal is sustained. The appeal is dismissed.

Division Three holds: (1) Where the statement of facts in the Stickleys' brief 2) fails to provide sufficient facts relating to the controversy on appeal, 3) asserts facts that are conclusory and argumentative, 4) fails to support statements with page references to the legal file or transcript, and 5) incorporates by reference the pleadings and motions of the entire case, the statement of facts fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.

(2) Where the points relied on asserted in the Stickleys' brief set out specific allegations of trial court error but fail to concisely state the legal reasons for the Stickleys' claim of error and explain why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of error, the points relied on do not meet the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.

(3) Where the argument portion of the Stickleys' brief 1) provides an incorrect statement of the applicable standard of review, 2) fails to develop a cohesive argument, 3) gives no explanation how the propositions asserted are determinative to the outcome of the appeal, 4) asserts arguments not raised in the points relied on, and 5) asserts facts not supported by page references to the legal file or transcript, the argument section fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.

Lowenstein, P.J., and Hanna, S.J., concur.

Robert G. Ulrich, Judge

Cathy and David Stickley appeal the summary judgment of the circuit court entered in favor of the respondent, Auto Credit, Inc., and against the Stickleys as it relates to both Auto Credit's action for unlawful detainer and the Stickleys' counter-claims for fraud, trover and conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The claims arose out of the sale and purchase of an automobile from Auto Credit to the Stickleys without a proper assignment of certificate of title. The Stickleys raise three points on appeal in which they claim the trial court erred, on various grounds, in entering summary judgment in favor of Auto Credit. Auto Credit filed a motion to dismiss the Stickleys' appeal for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04. The motion was ordered taken with the case.

Because it is dispositive of this appeal, Auto Credit's motion to dismiss is addressed. In its motion to dismiss, Auto Credit alleges various deficiencies in the Stickleys' brief. Auto Credit asserts that the numerous deficiencies in the statement of facts, the points relied on, and the argument violate the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04.

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 arguments that have not been asserted. Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). "It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal." Id.

Statement of Facts: Rule 84.04(c) and (i)

Rule 84.04(c) requires that the statement of facts in an appellant's brief "be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Rule 84.04(c). These requirements regarding the statement of facts section of an appellant's brief serve to define the scope of the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case. Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141, 146 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000). "A statement of facts that consists of nothing more than an abbreviated procedural history fails to provide an understanding of the case and is deficient." Parnes v. Centertainment, Inc., 14 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (quoting Angle v. Grant, 997 S.W.2d 133, 134 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999)). Failure to conform the statement of facts to the requirements of Rule 84.04(c) constitutes grounds for dismissal. McKee v. Wilmarth, 771 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989).

The statement of facts in the Stickleys' brief contains an extensive, but unnecessary, procedural history of the case but fails to provide sufficient facts relating to the controversy on appeal. The few facts asserted in this section are conclusory and argumentative. The Stickleys assert statements not supported by page references to the legal file or transcript as required by subparagraph (i) of Rule 84.04. Additionally, in the last paragraph of the statement of facts section, the Stickleys simply incorporate by reference the pleadings, motions and suggestions in support and opposition thereto in an attempt to shorten the statement of facts. This very statement defeats the purpose of a clear and concise statement of facts and requires this court to delve into the record to garner a complete and accurate understanding of the case, which this court is not obligated to do. Wilson, 25 S.W.3d at 667. Because of the lack of a proper statement of facts, the Stickleys' brief is not understandable without continuous reference to the record on appeal.

Points Relied On: Rule 84.04(d)

Rule 84.04(d) requires that the points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are challenged and why, in the context of the case, the legal reasons identified support the claim of reversible error. Rule 84.04(d). The points should be followed by a list of citations of authorities, including cases, not to exceed four, and constitutional, statutory and regulatory provisions or other authority upon which a party principally relies. Rule 84.04(d). The purpose of these briefing requirements regarding points relied on is to give "notice to the party opponent of the precise matters which must be contended with and answered" and "to inform the court of the issues presented for resolution." Perkel, 19 S.W.3d at 147 (quoting Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685-86 (Mo. banc 1978)). Failure to conform the points relied on to the requirements of Rule 84.04(d) constitutes grounds for dismissal. Mckee, 771 S.W.2d at...