Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers, No. ED 105749

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtLisa Van Amburg, Judge
Citation563 S.W.3d 740
Decision Date13 March 2018
Docket NumberNo. ED 105749
Parties UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Assignee of Citibank of South Dakota N.A. (Visa/Mastercard), Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Thomas MYERS, Respondent/Appellant.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 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. ......
  • City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v. Carroll, No. ED 107710
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 14, 2020
    ...gist of an appellant’s arguments, notwithstanding minor 597 S.W.3d 341 shortcomings in briefing." Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Comp & Soft, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. , 252 S.W.3d 189, 193-94 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). Because Appellant’......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...appellant's legal arguments, then nothing is preserved for review and we must dismiss the appeal." Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).Carmen's appellate brief violates Rule 84.04 in multiple respects, and we cannot reach the merits of this appeal w......
  • St. Louis Cnty. v. Shanklin, No. ED 108623
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 17, 2020
    ...as we can ascertain the gist of an appellant's arguments, notwithstanding minor shortcomings in briefing. Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). "However, if the brief is so deficient that we cannot competently rule on the merits without first reconst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 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. ......
  • City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v. Carroll, No. ED 107710
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 14, 2020
    ...gist of an appellant’s arguments, notwithstanding minor 597 S.W.3d 341 shortcomings in briefing." Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Comp & Soft, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. , 252 S.W.3d 189, 193-94 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). Because Appellant’......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...appellant's legal arguments, then nothing is preserved for review and we must dismiss the appeal." Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).Carmen's appellate brief violates Rule 84.04 in multiple respects, and we cannot reach the merits of this appeal w......
  • St. Louis Cnty. v. Shanklin, No. ED 108623
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 17, 2020
    ...as we can ascertain the gist of an appellant's arguments, notwithstanding minor shortcomings in briefing. Unifund CCR Partners v. Myers , 563 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). "However, if the brief is so deficient that we cannot competently rule on the merits without first reconst......
  • 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