391 S.W.3d 917
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wong (Appellant) appeals a circuit court denial to enforce a qualified domestic relations order.
- Appellant's initial brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, prompting the court to order amended briefing.
- Appellant filed an amended brief; Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for Rule 84.04 violations.
- Court found multiple Rule 84.04 deficiencies: statement of facts with argument and no page citations, faulty points relied on, missing standard of review, and poor record citations.
- Court dismissed the appeal forthwith, concluding briefing deficiencies prevented review and effectively placed the court in an advocacy role for the non-complying party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance. | Wong contends the amended brief complies. | Wong argues dismissal is warranted due to noncompliance. | Dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Perryville v. Brewer, 376 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (mandatory briefing rules; failure to comply prejudices review)
- Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, 300 S.W.3d 580 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (statement of facts must be definitive and referenced to the record)
- Rogers v. Hester ex rel. Mills, 334 S.W.3d 528 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (court will not infer or create arguments from noncompliant briefs)
- Pointer v. State, Dept. of Soc. Services, 258 S.W.3d 453 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (requirement to state standard of review and cite authorities)
- Kehrer v. Corr. Med. Services, 180 S.W.3d 9 (Mo.App. E.D.2005) (unsupported factual assertions fail to preserve review)
- Dun-cm%-Anderson v. Duncan, 321 S.W.3d 498 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (court not to become advocate for noncomplying party)