Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, Mo

Decision Date07 May 2001
Citation51 S.W.3d 119
Parties(Mo.App. W.D. 2001) Dennis Weisenburger, Appellant, v. The City of St. Joseph, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent. WD58457 0
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Hon. Weldon Clare Judah

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: Lisa M. Robertson, Brian W. Head and Timothy J. Kissock

Opinion Summary: Dennis Weisenburger sought review in the circuit court after an administrative hearing held by the City of St. Joseph in which a demolition order was issued against his property. After a hearing to review the administrative record, the court affirmed the city's determination.

Division II holds: Pro se appellants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys. The deficiencies of appellant's brief preserved nothing for review.

Thomas H. Newton, Judge

BACKGROUND

In January 1998, the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, ("City") in an administrative condemnation hearing, found that the structures on property owned and controlled by Dennis Weisenburger ("Mr. Weisenburger") were dangerous. The City agreed to work with Mr. Weisenburger and entered into an agreement whereby he would have two years to demolish the structures. The City, however, explicitly reserved the right to exercise its option to demolish the buildings if they showed signs of further deterioration or safety problems. In December 1998, the City initiated a court action to demolish the structures after they continued to decay and deteriorate. At that time, the Buchanan County Circuit Court refused to entertain the action, claiming a lack of jurisdiction among other reasons. The City then conducted a second administrative condemnation hearing in April 1999. At that hearing, the structures were again determined to be dangerous, and the City's chief building official issued a demolition order against the property.

Mr. Weisenburger filed a Petition for Review pursuant to section 536.1101 and under Sec. 7-362 of the St. Joseph Code. After a hearing to review the administrative record, the Buchanan County Circuit Court, on March 27, 2000, affirmed the determination made by the City following its administrative condemnation hearing, wherein the City concluded that Mr. Weisenburger's buildings located at 5000-5006 King Hill Avenue and 108-112 West Missouri Avenue in St. Joseph, Missouri, were "dangerous buildings" as defined by the St. Joseph City Code. The circuit court further found that Mr. Weisenburger himself admitted at the hearing that the buildings in question were dangerous.2

This court dismissed the instant appeal on August 1, 2000, for failure to prosecute. On August 11, 2000, the appeal was reinstated. Mr. Weisenburger's brief was stricken on October 27, 2000, for failure to comply with Rule 84.04,3 and he was provided with a copy of Rule 84.04 and given an opportunity to file an amended brief correcting the defects. On November 15, we ordered the City to temporarily stay its demolition of Mr. Weisenburger's structures pending his posting of the supersedeas bond, which was posted. Mr. Weisenburger filed his amended brief on December 5, 2000. The City filed its brief on January 3, 2001. Mr. Weisenburger's reply brief, denominated "Brief of Appellant/Plaintiff," was filed on January 18, 2001.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Mr. Weisenburger appeals to this court pro se. Because pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys, they must comply with the Missouri Supreme Court rules.4 "It is well settled that: '[c]ompliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements is mandatory . . . .'"5 Although we appreciate the difficulties faced by pro se litigants, we will not give them preferential treatment because we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers.6 Hence, Mr. Weisenburger's substantial noncompliance with Rule 84.04 makes his appeal unreviewable.

Mr. Weisenburger's points relied on read substantially as follows:7

The City of St. Joseph, Missouri erred because they did not file a timely appeal from [the] Administrative Condemnation Hearing; [citing section 536.110; St. Joseph Municipal Code 7-21; Wrenn v. Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)].

(2) The City of St. Joseph, Missouri erred because they failed to maintain good records at the Condemnation Hearing on January 28, 1998, case number 1773. The records were not verbatim[,] and the objection made by Respondent/Appellant, [sic] Dennis Weisenburger, was sustained in the Buchanan County Circuit Court, CV398-3802CC. Therefore, the City of St. Joseph, Missouri was not in compliance with [section] 536.070. The minutes were not entered in the Supplemental Legal File.

(3) The Buchanan County Circuit Court erred, because the court did not have jurisdiction to hear CV398-3802CC, due to the fact that the City of St. Joseph, Missouri[,] did not file a timely appeal after the Administrative Hearing; [citing section 536.110; St. Joseph Municipal Code 7-21; Wrenn v. Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)].

(4) On April 21, 1999[,] the City of St. Joseph, Missouri[,] held the Administrative Condemnation Hearing, case number 1773. The City of St. Joseph, Missouri erred, due to lack of jurisdiction, to hear the case[,] which had not been appealed by the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, either properly. nor timely [sic]; [citing section 536.110; St. Joseph Municipal Code 7-21; Wrenn v. Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)].

(5) The Buchanan County Circuit Court erred, due to lack of jurisdiction, in allowing the hearing of the trail [sic] denovo [sic], CV399-1583, since the Administrative Hearing, heard on January 28, 1998, lacked timely filing of an appeal; [citing section 536.110; St. Joseph Municipal Code 7-21; Wrenn v. Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)].

(6) [The] Buchanan County Circuit Court erred in entering a Determination in CV399-1583CC, on March 13, 2000, because the court entered judgement [sic] without the minutes of the Administrative Condemnation Hearing or pertinent audio taped [sic] recorded records; [citing section 536.070]. The verdict was the result of speculation and conjecture. [citing Barber v. M.F.A. Milling Company, 536 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Mo. App. 1976)].

"A 'contested case' means a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing."8 Mr. Weisenburger had a right to a hearing pursuant to Sec. 7-354(3) of the St. Joseph Code. The proper standard of review for a contested administrative decision is to "uphold the agency decision unless that decision is not supported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, or is not authorized by law."9 We will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency related to matters of discretion vested in the agency.10

In his third, fifth, and sixth points, Mr. Weisenburger does not identify the administrative ruling or action that he challenges. Instead, he challenges the actions of the Buchanan County Circuit Court. Rule 84.04(d)(2) governs appellate court review of the decision of an administrative agency and supplies the form for a proper point relied on. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that each point shall:

(A) identify the administrative ruling or action 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.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The [name of agency] erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, including the reference to the applicable statute authorizing review], in that [explain why, in the context of the case, the legal reasons support the claim of reversible error]."

Because points three, five, and six do not satisfy the requirements of the rule, they preserve nothing for appellate review, and we decline to address them.11

Likewise, points one and two fail to comply with Rule 84.04. His first point fails because it is an abstract statement of law, which, standing alone, does not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(4). The second and fourth points are simply incoherent. If we attempted to interpret them, we would be forced to act as an advocate for Mr. Weisenburger. This we cannot do.12

Furthermore, nowhere in his brief has Mr. Weisenburger apprised this court of the applicable standard of review for any of his points.13 More importantly, his arguments are devoid of any legal analysis whatsoever:14

POINT NO. 1 The City of St. Joseph, Missouri[,] erred because they did not file a timely appeal from the Administrative Condemnation Hearing; [citing section 536.110; St. Joseph Municipal Code 7-21; Wrenn v. Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)]. The City of St. Joseph held an Administrative Condemnation Hearing on January 28, 1998. Evelyn Shields acted as the hearing officer in case number 1773. The Appellant's buildings, located at 5000 through 5006 King Hill Avenue and 108 through 112 West Missouri Avenue, St. Joseph, Missouri[,] were the buildings at issue. The City and the Appellant both thought an agreement had been reached, wherein the Appellant had two years to build a new building on a new location, to remove the merchandise located in the collapsed building[,] and to demolish the collapsed building; said agreement was in writing. Neither party appealed this case.

POINT NO. 2. The City of St. Joseph, Missouri[,] erred because they failed to maintain good records at the Condemnation Hearing on January 28, 1998, case number 1773. The records were not verbatim and the objection made by Respondent/Appellant, Dennis Weisenburger, was sustained in the Buchanan County Circuit Court, CV398-3802CC. The hearing was a contested case in which a record of the proceedings was required...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Gerald M. v. Dep't of Child Safety
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 2016
    ...(courts are not advocates and not required to address claims not squarely presented to them); see also Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 125 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001) ("'The function of the appellate court is to examine asserted trial-court error, not to serve as advocate for any......
  • State v. Rose, WD 59925.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2002
    ...this point, we would be forced to act as an advocate for Mr. Rose, which, clearly, we cannot do. See Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 123 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001). Further, Mr. Rose's argument does not correspond with the issue raised in his point relied on. In the argument por......
  • State v. Charlton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 2003
    ...in the argument portion of the brief are deemed abandoned and present nothing for appellate review." Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 124 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (citing Luft v. Schoenhoff, 935 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Mo.App. E.D.1996)). Therefore, the portion of the point alleging er......
  • Dimmitt v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2002
    ...argument in the argument portion of the brief are deemed abandoned and present nothing for appellate review. Weisenburger v. City of St. Joseph, 51 S.W.3d 119, 124 (Mo. App. 2001). This leaves for review the ultimate issue of Dimmitt having an insurable interest in the insured Does Dimmitt ......
  • 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