Vogel v. Steffen, WD 83856

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Gary D. Witt, Judge
• Citation: 628 S.W.3d 224
• Parties: Timothy G. VOGEL, Respondent, v. Robert S. STEFFEN, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 29 June 2021
• Docket Number: WD 83856

628 S.W.3d 224

Timothy G. VOGEL, Respondent,
v.
Robert S. STEFFEN, Appellant.

WD 83856

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 29, 2021

Zane G. Williams, Sunrise Beach, MO, for respondent.

Robert S. Steffen, Appellant Pro Se.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

Robert Steffen ("Steffen") appeals from the Circuit Court of Morgan County, which following a bench trial entered judgment against Steffen and in favor of Timothy Vogel ("Vogel") as to Vogel's claims of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The circuit court found in favor of Steffen and against Vogel as to Vogel's claim for a violation of the Missouri Securities Act. Steffen appeals pro se. Because Steffen's briefing does not comply with Rule 84.04¹ and because Steffen has failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below, we dismiss the appeal.

"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 on arguments that have not been made." Bartsch v. BMC Farms, LLC , 573 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). "Failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for review and is a proper ground for dismissing an appeal." Lueker v. Mo. W. State Univ. , 241 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). "The statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Rule 84.04(c). "The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Lattimer v. Clark , 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp't Sec. , 261 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ). In the instant case, Steffen's Statement of Facts does not contain the necessary facts for us to determine the merits of his claim, and this court would be required to become an advocate to properly address his claims, which we cannot do. Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 836-37 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). Further, the rule requires "[a]ll factual assertions in the argument shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal." Rule 84.04(e). Other than generally stating that this is...