Davis v. Long
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 188
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Long appeals a summary judgment in favor of Davis in a quiet title-declaratory judgment action.
- Long twice amended her initial brief to comply with Rule 84.04; Davis moved to dismiss for noncompliance.
- The Court granted Long until September 7, 2012 to file a compliant amended brief and Long filed a second amended brief.
- Davis renewed the motion to dismiss; the Court reserved ruling and eventually considered the motion with the case.
- Rule 84.04 requires precise jurisdictional citation; Long incorrectly cited Section 288.210 RSMo (1995) instead of the correct provision.
- The Court held Long’s brief failed to comply with multiple subsections of Rule 84.04, preventing meaningful review and resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the appeal be dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance? | Long contends the appeal properly raises issues on the merits. | Davis argues the brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04, depriving appellate jurisdiction. | Yes; the appeal is dismissed for noncompliance. |
| Did Long comply with Rule 84.04(b) regarding jurisdictional citation? | Long raised jurisdictional issues under Rule 84.04. | Long incorrectly cited Section 288.210 RSMo (1995), misidentifying jurisdictional basis. | No; improper citation violated Rule 84.04(b). |
| Did Long's Rule 84.04(c)-(e) briefing requirements satisfy the court? | Long provides arguments alleging error by Davis. | Long’s facts are argumentative, references are improper, and points relied on lack coherence and standard-of-review discussion. | No; briefing failed to meet the required structure and content. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of A.T., 380 S.W.3d 653 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (substantial noncompliance with Rule 84.04 defeats appellate jurisdiction)
- Clemens v. Eberenz Const. Co., 258 S.W.3d 458 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (need for compliance to avoid advocacy through speculation)
- Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 348 S.W.3d 848 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (compliance required to avoid court being placed in untenable position)
- McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (pro se litigants held to same Rule 84.04 standards as attorneys)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (fairness and compliance considerations in appellate review)
- Schaefer v. Altman, 250 S.W.3d 381 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (briefs must align with points relied on and supported by record)