Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. v. Steiner, SD 35292
Decision Date | 31 July 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SD 35292,SD 35292 |
Citation | 564 S.W.3d 351 |
Parties | TAN-TAR-A ESTATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Neil B. STEINER, and Deborah G. Steiner, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellants, Blue Springs, MO, Acting Pro Se.
JOSHUA D. MOORE, Columbia, MO, for Respondent.
Neil and Deborah Steiner ("Appellants"), proceeding pro se , attempt to appeal a judgment entered against them in favor of Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. ("Respondent"). Because Appellants' failure to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.041 materially impedes impartial review, we must dismiss the appeal.
Respondent filed a declaratory judgment action against Appellants, seeking a declaration that Respondent was the owner of certain improvements to real property located on Tan-Tar-A Estates Lot #310, Osage Beach, Camden County, Missouri ("the Property").2 The trial court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment that declared Respondent the owner of the improvements ("the judgment").
Pro se litigants are required to follow the same appellate rules as parties represented by lawyers. Reliable Roofing, LLC v. Jones , 302 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). While we recognize the challenges facing pro se litigants, we cannot bend those rules to benefit non-lawyers. Id. As our Supreme Court stated in Thummel v. King , 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978) :
It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal.... When counsel fail in their duty by filing briefs which are not in conformity with the applicable rules and do not sufficiently advise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, the court is left with the dilemma of deciding that case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency. Courts should not be asked or expected to assume such a role.
This requirement of neutrality also prevents us from becoming an advocate on behalf of parties not represented by counsel.
In this appeal, the following deficiencies materially impede impartial review.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carden v. CSM Foreclosure Tr. Corp.
... ... determine whether any reversible error occurred." Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. v. Steiner , 564 S.W.3d 351, 353 (Mo. App ... ...
-
HSBC Bank United States, Nat'l Ass'n v. Spence
... ... Tan-Tar-A Ests., L.L.C. v. Steiner , 564 S.W.3d 351, 353 (Mo. App ... ...
-
HSBC Bank U.S. v. Spence
...had occurred. Tan-Tar-A Ests., L.L.C. v. Steiner, 564 S.W.3d 351, 353 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018). That advocacy role is one that we cannot assume. Id. appeal is dismissed. MARY W. SHEFFIELD, P.J. - CONCURS GARY W. LYNCH, J. - CONCURS --------- Notes: [1] All rule references are to Missouri Court ......
-
Steiner v. Rolfes
... ... Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. v. Steiner , 564 S.W.3d 351 (Mo.App. S.D. 2018). The same ... ...