431 S.W.3d 524
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Won Kim, pro se, appeals dismissal with prejudice of his pro se malicious-prosecution motion.
- The appellate court dismisses for inadequate briefing under Rule 84.04, citing inability to determine merits.
- Court reiterates pro se appellants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys.
- Rule 84.04(c) requires a fair, concise statement of facts; Kim’s statement fails to resolve the issues.
- Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires a proper point relied on identifying the ruling, concise legal reasons, and summary explanation; Kim’s point is incoherent.
- Court dismisses the appeal for flagrant brief deficiencies and notes it would effectively be advising the party if it reviewed the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance | Kim failed to comply with briefing rules | Noncompliance warrants dismissal | Dismissed |
| Whether the point relied on is coherent and properly developed | Kim’s point constitutes reversible-error argument | Point is incoherent and abandoned | Abandoned |
| Whether the statement of facts complies with Rule 84.04(c) | Facts sufficient to resolve issues | Statement not fair or concise | Dismissed for inadequate facts |
| Whether the record submission supports review (docket sheet, transcript, legal file) | Record supports appeal | Record incomplete; files stricken | Legal file struck; no record to review |
| Whether sanctions for frivolous filing should be imposed | Possible sanctions warranted | Sanctions unnecessary | Sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664 (Mo.App.2000) (applies pro se briefing standards)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.1999) (failure to comply with briefing rules grounds for dismissal)
- In re Marriage of Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d 317 (Mo.App.2004) (facts need reconstruction to review briefing)
- Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456 (Mo.App.2004) (mandatory Rule 84.04 briefing compliance)
- Anderson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 173 S.W.3d 356 (Mo.App.2005) (failure to substantially comply preserves nothing for review)
- Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm’n v. Taylor, 839 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1992) (failure to provide fair and concise statement of facts)
- Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560 (Mo.App.2001) (appellate court cannot assume advocate role)
- Foster v. Village of Brownington, 140 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.App.2004) (points not developed abandoned)
- Cooper v. Bluff City Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.App.2002) (argument not developed; abandoned)