Kwang H. Kim v. Won Il Kim
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1062
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kwang H. Kim and Won Il Kim are parties to a dissolution-related dispute in Missouri Western District Court of Appeals.
- Mr. Kim appeals from orders: (i) attorney’s fees for Ms. Kim and sanctions for frivolous pleadings; (ii) denial of modification of a 1991 dissolution decree; (iii) disposition of numerous motions.
- Ms. Kim moved to strike the legal file and Mr. Kim’s brief and sought sanctions; she also moved to dismiss the appeal.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with Rule 84.04, finding the brief deficient in jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, points relied on, and argument, rendering review impracticable.
- Despite dismissing the appeal, the court denied Ms. Kim’s motions to strike the file and Mr. Kim’s brief and denied sanctions against Mr. Kim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for Rule 84.04 deficiencies | Kim contends merits warrant review despite defects | Respondent argues defects prevent meaningful review | Appeal dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance |
| Whether the circuit court erred in sanctioning Mr. Kim for frivolous pleadings | Kim challenges sanctions as improper | Ms. Kim maintains sanctions were warranted | Sanctions issue not reached on the merits due to dismissal; sanctions denied |
| Whether the circuit court correctly denied modification of the 1991 dissolution decree | Kim seeks modification | Kim opposed modification | Issue not reached on the merits due to dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (mandatory Rule 84.04 compliance to avoid review)
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (Rule 84.04 violations dismissed)
- Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (pro se litigants subject to same procedural rules)
- Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (briefs must be comprehensible and supported by authority)
- Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 261 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (facts and law must be presented without argument)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (defects in briefing can justify dismissal)
- In re Marriage of Spears, 995 S.W.2d 500 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (appellate failure to provide authority can lead to dismissal)
- City of Plattsburg v. Davison, 176 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (abandoned issues may be dismissed for lack of authority and argument)