413 S.W.3d 348
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mitchell, pro se, appeals a declaratory judgment action by Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. concerning payment of insurance proceeds for his damaged 2007 Ford F-150.
- Insurer offered to pay full pre-accident value (less deductible) for surrender of the truck or a lesser amount with Mitchell keeping the truck; Mitchell rejected both offers.
- In Feb 2012 Insurer filed a petition for declaration of pre- and post-accident values, ownership, and related documents; Mitchell amended his answer, indicating agreement on post-accident value but disagreement with terms and procedures.
- Mitchell admitted post-accident value of $3,000, acknowledged a current balance of $18,329.96, and stated salvage value of $3,000; he agreed the insurer would be paid $18,329.96, with possession transfer conditions.
- In July 2012 Mitchell filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; the record does not show a ruling on that motion.
- On December 26, 2012 the trial court rendered a judgment: adjusted cash value before the accident was $18,329.96, to be paid in two installments; $3,000 remained with the insurer until transfer of possession, with ownership reverting and funds returned if transfer was not completed within 45 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for briefing deficiencies | Mitchell argues the issues on appeal are preserved and the brief complies with the substance of his claims. | Shelter contends the brief fails Rule 84.04 and is insufficient to allow review. | Appeal dismissed due to severe briefing deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (noncompliance with Rule 84.04 supports dismissal)
- FIA Card Servs., NA. v. Hayes, 339 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d) preserves nothing for appeal)
- Carlisle v. Rainbow Connection, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 583 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (pro se appellants held to Rule 84.04 standards)
- In re Marriage of Smith, 283 S.W.3d 271 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (facts must be stated with record citations and in light most favorable to judgment)
- Kent v. Charlie Chicken, II, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.E.D.1998) (deficient statement of facts cannot cure insufficient record references)
- State ex rel. Koster v. Allen, 298 S.W.3d 139 (Mo.App.S.D.2009) (multifarious error claims can fail to comply with Rule 84.04)