376 S.W.3d 691
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brewer appeals a conviction for failure to abate a nuisance under City of Perryville ordinance.
- Trial court found an inoperable mobile home on Brewer’s property violated the nuisance ordinance after notice to remove it.
- City code enforcer observed a 65-foot stripped mobile home frame in public view on Brewer’s property on March 15, 2010.
- Brewer received a certified removal notice on March 16 and stated he would not remove the mobile home.
- Brewer was cited after a March 25 re-check; the defense argued the item was a hay trailer and exempt, but the court disagreed.
- The trial court convicted Brewer and ordered a fine of $150 plus costs; on appeal, Brewer’s brief was deemed noncompliant, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice and related ordinances | Brewer—Brewer argues notice inadequate and no reference to related nuisances. | Brewer—Brewer alleges notice defects and improper ordinance scope. | Point dismissed; briefing noncompliance prevents review. |
| Overbreadth and public disturbance requirement | Brewer asserts ordinance overly broad and no proof of public disturbance. | Brewer—claims lack of evidence and overbreadth invalidate conviction. | Point dismissed; briefing deficiencies prevent reversal. |
| Hay trailer exemption under statute | Brewer argues Missouri law bars nuisance application because item is a hay trailer. | Brewer fails to provide sufficient authority and evidence to overcome the trial finding. | Point dismissed; failure to preserve and argue standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d 725 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (mandatory briefing requirements; preserves nothing without compliance)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Koonce, 168 S.W.3d 656 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (do not infer arguments or facts not raised by appellant)
- Bishop v. Metro Restoration Services, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 43 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (dismissal for briefing deficiencies when impeding merits review)
- Clemens v. Eberenz Const. Co., Inc., 258 S.W.3d 458 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (appellant’s duty to articulate and preserve issues; court not advocate)
- Roberson v. KMR Const., LLC, 208 S.W.3d 320 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006) (abandoned arguments not addressed in brief)
- Sumowski, 794 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. b. 1990) (preservation requirement at each stage of process)