Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., WD58500

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation53 S.W.3d 560
PartiesKathy and David Stickley, Appellants v. Auto Credit, Inc., Respondent. WD58500 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District 0
Docket NumberWD58500
Decision Date17 July 2001

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'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • City of Kansas City v. New York-Kansas Bldg, No. WD 60818.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2002
    ...not been asserted. See id. Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 is grounds for dismissal. Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Mo. App. W.D.2001). "It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal." Wilson, 25 S.W.3......
  • Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Hart, WD 78135
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 19, 2016
    ...a petition filed after the statute of limitations expires, we do not consider this argument further. See Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001) (noting that the argument section of an appellate brief must restate the points relied on and discuss the argument as......
  • Eagle ex rel. Estate of Eagle v. Redmond, No. WD 60249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 6, 2002
    ...must develop, in the argument section of the brief, error raised in the point relied on. Id.; Stickley Page 924 v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Mo.App.2001); State ex rel. Greene v. Greene, 51 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Mo.App.2001); Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 124 (M......
  • Kelley v. Widener Concrete Constr., LLC, No. SD 32149.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 11, 2013
    ...the trial court's determinations, and essentially become an advocate for the Kelleys, which we cannot do. Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). The Kelleys argue the testimony from the two experts that the only way to correct the damaged concrete was to remov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • City of Kansas City v. New York-Kansas Bldg, No. WD 60818.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2002
    ...not been asserted. See id. Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 is grounds for dismissal. Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Mo. App. W.D.2001). "It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal." Wilson, 25 S.W.3......
  • Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Hart, WD 78135
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 19, 2016
    ...a petition filed after the statute of limitations expires, we do not consider this argument further. See Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001) (noting that the argument section of an appellate brief must restate the points relied on and discuss the argument as......
  • Eagle ex rel. Estate of Eagle v. Redmond, No. WD 60249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 6, 2002
    ...must develop, in the argument section of the brief, error raised in the point relied on. Id.; Stickley Page 924 v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Mo.App.2001); State ex rel. Greene v. Greene, 51 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Mo.App.2001); Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 124 (M......
  • Kelley v. Widener Concrete Constr., LLC, No. SD 32149.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 11, 2013
    ...the trial court's determinations, and essentially become an advocate for the Kelleys, which we cannot do. Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). The Kelleys argue the testimony from the two experts that the only way to correct the damaged concrete was to remov......
  • 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