Won IL Kim v. Reuben A. Shelton
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 188
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Won Il Kim (pro se) sued Reuben A. Shelton for allegedly making fraudulent statements in a Missouri Bar Journal article, seeking $587,928.51 in damages.
- Kim premised the claim on § 575.060 RSMo, asserting Shelton’s positive remarks about the Missouri Bar were false given Kim’s negative experiences with Missouri attorneys in past proceedings (1993 divorce and 2013 QDRO matter).
- The Cole County Circuit Court dismissed Kim’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- Kim appealed the dismissal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
- The appellate court found Kim’s brief severely defective under Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.04—fact statement was argumentative and incomprehensible; points on appeal were vague, incoherent, and unsupported by legal authority.
- Because the brief prevented meaningful review and would require the court to act as Kim’s advocate, the court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Kim’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim | Shelton’s article contained false, fraudulent statements actionable under § 575.060; damages sought for the alleged fraud | Trial court dismissed complaint as legally insufficient (failure to state a claim) | Appeal did not reach merits because Kim’s briefing failed Rule 84.04; appeal dismissed |
| Whether Kim’s appellate brief complied with Rule 84.04(c) (statement of facts) | Kim presented facts showing harm from article | Kim’s statement of facts was argumentative, incomplete, and largely incomprehensible | Court held Kim’s statement of facts violated Rule 84.04(c) and prevented review |
| Whether Kim’s points on appeal complied with Rule 84.04(d) (points relied on) | Kim asserted various grounds for reversal | Points were vague, incoherent, and failed to state legal reasons or connect law to claimed error | Court held points violated Rule 84.04(d); not understandable or reviewable |
| Whether Kim provided legal authority to support his arguments | Kim asserted errors but cited no controlling case law or legal authority | Absence of cited authority justified treating points as abandoned | Court declined to reach merits because Kim neither cited authority nor showed why none applied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Kim, 443 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (discussing appellate brief compliance and prior dismissal for noncompliance)
- Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (describing purpose of statement of facts and limits on courts acting as advocate)