Wallace v. Frazier
Decision Date | 03 April 2018 |
Docket Number | WD 80758 |
Parties | Terry WALLACE, Respondent, v. Marjorie FRAZIER, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Terry WALLACE, Respondent,
v.
Marjorie FRAZIER, Appellant.
WD 80758
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
OPINION FILED: April 3, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied May 1, 2018
Marjorie Frazier, Belton, MO, Appellant Acting Pro Se.
J. Russell Ford, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
Before Division Two: James Edward Welsh, P.J., Alok Ahuja, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.
James Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge
Marjorie Frazier appeals the circuit court's judgment in favor of her former landlord, Terry Wallace, in his action against her for rent and possession, in which the court awarded Wallace $1,807 in rent, late fees, attorney's fees, and costs. Due to substantial deficiencies in Frazier's appellate brief which prevent us from determining what her actual claims of trial court error are, we dismiss her appeal.
Discussion
Frazier appears pro se in this appeal. We hold pro se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys; we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules. Kim v. Kim, 431 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo. App. 2014). "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." Summers v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 459 S.W.3d 922, 923 (Mo. App. 2015). An appellant's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 "preserves nothing for our review" and constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Id. This is particularly true where, as here, "we cannot competently rule on the merits of [the appellant's] argument without first reconstructing the facts ... and then refining and supplementing [her] points and legal argument." Kim, 431 S.W.3d at 525.
This Court struck Frazier's initial brief for numerous violations of Rule 84.04. Frazier was given fifteen days to file an amended brief to correct those violations. Her amended brief still fails to adequately comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the contents of briefs.
Frazier's "Statement of Facts" lacks specific page references to the legal file or transcript in violation of Rule 84.04(c). In addition, Rule 84.04(c) requires the appellant to provide "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Frazier does not provide a fair and concise statement of the facts necessary to resolve the claims that she purportedly attempts to raise in her appeal. "The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Nicol v. Nicol , 491 S.W.3d 266, 268 (Mo. App. 2016). Frazier fails to fulfill this purpose. Her "facts" are aimed primarily at restating her version of events and arguing, based on her version
of events, that the trial court erred in ruling against her. Thus, Frazier fails to provide a "fair and concise" statement of the facts necessary to resolve the issues "without argument," as required by Rule 84.04(c). This failure, in itself, is a sufficient basis to dismiss the appeal. See Kim, 431 S.W.3d at 525.
Frazier's "Points Relied On" also fail to comply with Rule 84.04.1 Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires that each point: "(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges"; "(B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error"; and "(C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error." Rule 84.04(d)(1) instructs that:
The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action ], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error ], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Crossroads Acad.-Cent. St.
...that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made." Wallace v. Frazier , 546 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (internal quotes and citation omitted). An appellant's brief must contain "[t]he points relied on." Rule 84.04(a)(4)......
-
Kan. City Area Transp. Auth. v. Donovan
...appellate review." Prather v. City of Carl Junction, Mo. , 345 S.W.3d 261, 265 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ; see also Wallace v. Frazier , 546 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ("Points that do not comply with the dictates of Rule 84.04(d) preserve nothing for our review and constitute grounds ......
-
Johnson v. Norman
...the points relied on section, but '[p]oints that are not developed in the argument are deemed to be abandoned." Wallace v. Frazier, 546 S.W.3d 624 at 628 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Kim v.Kim, 431 S.W.3d 524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). Johnson argues that the claim is not procedurally barred becau......
-
State v. Downum
...to support contentions with relevant law and analysis beyond conclusory statements, we deem the point abandoned." Wallace v. Frazier , 546 S.W.3d 624, 628 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). Point 1 fails.Point 2 – Denial of Motion to SeverIn his second point on appeal, Defendant claims the trial court e......