Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers

Citation563 S.W.3d 740
Decision Date13 March 2018
Docket NumberNo. ED 105749,ED 105749
Parties UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Assignee of Citibank of South Dakota N.A. (Visa/Mastercard), Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Thomas MYERS, Respondent/Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

563 S.W.3d 740

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Assignee of Citibank of South Dakota N.A. (Visa/Mastercard), Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
Thomas MYERS, Respondent/Appellant.

No. ED 105749

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: March 13, 2018
Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 17, 2018


FOR APPELLANT: Thomas Myers—Pro Se, P.O. Box 29415, St. Louis, Missouri 63126.

FOR RESPONDENT: Michael A. Finley, 11970 Borman Dr., Suite 250, St. Louis, Missouri 63146.

Lisa Van Amburg, Judge

Thomas Myers appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment of revival in favor of Unifund CCR Partners, as assignee of Citibank of South Dakota N.A. (Visa/Mastercard), in this debt collection matter. We dismiss the appeal for substantial violations of Rule 84.04.

Background

In October 2005, Unifund obtained a default judgment against Myers in the amount of $13,396.66. The debt remained outstanding for nearly ten years. In August 2015, Unifund filed a motion to revive the judgment under Rule 74.09. In February 2017, Myers received service and an accompanying order to show cause why the judgment should not be revived. Both parties appeared for a hearing, though evidently no transcript was taken. The trial court granted Unifund’s motion to revive the judgment, finding that Myers failed to show good cause why the judgment should not be revived. Myers appeals pro se and attempts to assert one or two points of error, the gist of which seem to involve due process and timeliness. However, due to significant deficiencies in Myers’s appellate brief, we must dismiss his appeal.

563 S.W.3d 742

Discussion

"Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with rules of appellate procedure." Houston v. Weisman , 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). "Failure to comply constitutes grounds for dismissal." Id.

Rule 84.04(b) requires a jurisdictional statement containing sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of the particular provision of article V, section 3 of the Missouri Constitution on which jurisdiction is predicated. Myers’s jurisdictional statement contains argumentative assertions and no reference to the constitutional basis for this court’s jurisdiction.

Rule 84.04(c) requires a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the issues on appeal, with corresponding citations to the legal file. Myers’s statement of facts recounts past circumstances involving his family and neighbors, also impugning Unifund’s principals in various respects. These facts are not relevant to the motion or judgment of revival. To the extent Myers raises them in an effort to attack...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • McGuire v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2019
    ...jurisdictional statement does not refer to the constitutional basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers, 563 S.W.3d 740, 742 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). Instead, Dr. McGuire’s jurisdictional statement is an argumentative statement of facts. See Porter, 310 S.W.3d at 297. ......
  • Brown v. GoJet Airlines, LLC
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2022
    ... ... beyond conclusory statements, its position is abandoned ... Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, ... 742-43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Houston v ... ...
  • Brown v. GoJet Airlines, LLC
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2022
    ...contentions with relevant authority or argument beyond conclusory statements, its position is abandoned. Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers, 563 S.W.3d 740, 742-43 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)). Therefore, assuming, without deciding, t......
  • Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 2022
    ...then nothing is preserved for review and we must dismiss the appeal." Allen, 615 S.W.3d at 853 (quoting Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers, 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ).Here, Point One fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d), which requires each point to: (A) identify the trial court ru......
  • 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