Lattimer v. Clark
412 S.W.3d 420
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lattimer appeals a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission decision that she received unemployment benefits overpayments due to disqualification for voluntary quit without good cause and untimely appeal.
- The appeal is pro se; the initial brief was struck for multiple Rule 84.04 violations, and the amended brief retained deficiencies.
- Rule 84.04 requires specific briefing content to avoid speculative or omitted issues; violations support dismissal
- The court found deficiencies across jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, and points relied on, preventing review of the merits
- The court concluded it could not review the merits even ex gratia due to the defective brief and preservation issues
- Result: the appeal is dismissed without addressing the Commission’s substantive rulings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for defective briefing | Lattimer contends briefing flaws are not fatal | Rule 84.04 violations mandate dismissal | Dismissed for defective briefing |
| Whether the jurisdictional statement meets Rule 84.04(b) requirements | Jurisdictional facts were stated | Statement inadequate to show Article V, section 3 applicability | Jurisdictional statement deficient |
| Whether the statement of facts complies with Rule 84.04(c) | Facts presented support review | Facts are argumentative and biased, not a concise factual statement | Statement of facts deficient |
| Whether the points relied on comply with Rule 84.04(d)(5) and (e) | Points rely on and authorities are sufficient | Points relied on lack proper authority and fail to cite supporting laws | Noncompliant points relied on |
| Whether merits are preserved for review or can be considered ex gratia | Merits of disqualification and overpayment should be reviewed | Merits not properly preserved; overpayment issue not before the court | Merits not preserved; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (Rule 84.04 violations can lead to dismissal)
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (briefing failures may dismiss appeal)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.E.D.1999) (Rule 84.04 violations grounds for dismissal)
- Moreland, v. Div. of Emp’t See., 273 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (abandoned claims rarely reviewed; procedural rules apply)
- Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 261 S.W.3d 708 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (noncompliant briefs hinder review)
- Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Mgmt., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 6 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (facts must be stated in light most favorable to verdict for review)
- State v. Bell, 266 S.W.3d 287 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (argument must be supported by legal authorities)
- St. John’s Mercy Health Sys. v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 273 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. banc 2009) (merits not addressed when issues not properly preserved)