Dannie Mael v. Lydia McEvoy
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1430
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Dannie Mael, pro se, filed a petition for writ of quo warranto; the circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice.
- Mael appealed the dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
- The appellate court reviewed Mael’s brief and found it failed to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.
- Deficiencies included an incoherent jurisdictional statement, an inadequate statement of facts, unclear points relied on that did not identify trial-court error, and an incoherent argument section.
- Mael cited historical documents (Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, early statutes and ordinances) that the court found irrelevant and did not cite controlling precedent supporting her claims.
- Because the brief preserved nothing for review, the court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should proceed despite briefing defects | Mael proceeded pro se and submitted a brief asserting jurisdiction via historical documents and various claims (not clearly stated) | Respondents relied on court rules and record to defend dismissal | Dismissed: Mael’s brief fails Rule 84.04; appeal preserved nothing for review |
| Whether Mael’s jurisdictional statement met Rule 84.04(b) | Mael invoked Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution of 1787, and other historical laws to show jurisdiction | Brief did not set forth factual data demonstrating applicable constitutional or statutory jurisdiction | Held: Jurisdictional statement inadequate under Rule 84.04(b) |
| Whether Mael’s statement of facts complied with Rule 84.04(c) | Mael offered a factual narrative intermixed with jurisdictional material | Respondents asserted the statement of facts was incoherent and not a fair, concise statement of relevant facts | Held: Statement of facts inadequate and incoherent; violates Rule 84.04(c) |
| Whether Mael’s points relied on and argument preserved error for review | Mael advanced three points relied on and cited various historical authorities | Respondents argued points did not identify trial-court error, lacked legal reasoning and relevant precedent | Held: Points and argument violate Rule 84.04(d)–(e); no reversible error shown; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 299 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. App. 2009) (pro se appellants bound by same briefing rules and must substantially comply with Rule 84.04)
- First State Bank of St. Charles v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 277 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. App. 2008) (failure to comply with briefing rules is grounds for dismissal)
- First Bank v. The Annie-Joyce Group, LLC, 334 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. App. 2011) (briefing defects can prevent meaningful appellate review)
- Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (appellate argument must demonstrate erroneousness of lower-court ruling)
- Foster v. Village of Brownington, 140 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. 2004) (points written contrary to Rule 84.04 preserve nothing for review)
- Carroll v. AAA Bail Bonds, 6 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. App. 1999) (argument must show how law and facts interact)
- In re Marriage of Spears, 995 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. App. 1999) (appellant must cite appropriate precedent or risk abandonment of points)