Husband, John J. Smith, an attorney acting pro se, аppeals from a decree of dissolution of marriage. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s findings, the maintenance award, and the attorney’s fee award. Wife, Lora J. Smith, has moved to dismiss husband’s appeal on the ground that husband’s brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04. Husband’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 so substantially that we cannot review this appeal. In addition, his legal file fails to comply with Rule 81.12. The appeal is dismissed.
Statement of Facts — Rule 8U.0k(c)
The statement of facts in an appellant’s brief must be a fair and concise recitation of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination, and the statement of facts may not contain argument. Rule 84.04(c);
In re Marriage of Weinshenker,
First, the statement of facts is not concise. It contains an extensive discussion of matters not relevant to the issues raised on appeal, including a lengthy description of settlement negotiations, a dispute over a settlement agreement, and wife’s conduct in pretrial litigation. Second, the statement is argumentative. It criticizes the findings of the trial court and sets out contradictory evidence. Third, it fails to support many factual statements with citations to the record, in violation of Rule 84.04(i), and it refers to matters not in the record. Finally, the statement of facts omits, minimizes, or mischaracterizes relevаnt facts supporting the trial court’s findings.
An appellant may not simply recount his or her version of the events, but is required to provide a statement of the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
Weinshenker,
Points Relied On — Rule 81.01(d)
We reproduce the points relied on verbatim:
A. The Standard of Review.
B. The Findings, Conclusions and Judgment of Dissolution entered by the trial judge are vague, ambiguous and conflicting to such a degree as to require reversal.
C. The Trial Court’s Findings Regarding the Awаrd of Maintenance and Attorney Fees Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence, Are Against The Weight Of The Evidence And Erroneously Declares And Misapplies The Law.
D. The Trial Court’s Award of Maintenance and Attorney’s Fees to Rеspondent Is An Abuse of Discretion.
Each of these points violates Rule 84.04(d). The first point is merely a title, “The Standard of Review,” and not a point relied on. Accordingly, we do not consider it further.
Each of the three remaining points fails to state concisely legal reasons for the claims of reversible error and fails to explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claims of reversible errоr, in violation of Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) and (C).
See In re Marriage of Fritz,
A point relied on that cannot be understood without resorting to the recоrd or the argument portion of the brief preserves nothing for appellate review.
Fritz,
In this case, the points relied on do not reveal claims of error that can be understood standing alone. The failure of the points to comрly with Rule 84.04(d) deprives wife of notice of the issues presented and interferes with our ability to evaluate husband’s claims. These deficiencies are likewise sufficient to warrant dismissal.
See Fritz,
Argument and Citations to the Record— Rides 81.01(e), (i)
The arguments under each of the points fail to comply with Rule 84.04(e), and equally preserve nothing for review. First, the arguments do not separately state the applicable standard of review for each claim of error. Rule 84.40(e) requires that the applicable standard of review for “each claim of error” shall be set out in the argument under every point. This requirement is not satisfied by setting out a statement of the standard of review once at the beginning of the argument portion оf a brief.
1
See Weinshenker,
Next, the arguments are analytically insufficient. “An argument must explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error. It should advise the appellate court how principles оf law and the facts of the case interact.”
Fritz,
Here, the arguments under the briefs three substantive points are unreviewаble because they fail to unite specific errors and evidence from the record with precedents that demonstrate husband is entitled to relief. The argument under the second point claims that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are “vague, ambiguous, and conflicting” because the judgment contains phrasing such as “In the opinion of the Court,” etc. However, the argument does not cite where in the court’s nineteen-page judgment the offending phrases appear and does not explain how the use of these phrases affects any particular finding or conclusion.
The third argument attacks numerous findings of the trial court by describing the findings, describing contrary evidence, and concluding that the findings are “not supported by substantial evidence.” This argument likewise fails to indicate where in the record the relevant findings and evidence are located, and the argument’s conclusions are almost entirely unsupported by relevant precedents. The argument does not demonstrate that the trial court’s
The fourth argument summarizes the same claims made in the third argument, and concludes that these claims reveal that the trial court abused its discretion. The findings and evidence discussed in the fourth argument are not supported with citations to the record, and the argument’s conclusions are not supported by legal authority.
To evaluate husband’s arguments, we would nеed to search the record for the findings complained of, the evidence that the trial court relied on, and the evidence favorable to husband. We would then need to recast husband’s contentions within the standard оf review and legal authority applicable to each claim of error. This exercise would cause us to become husband’s advocate, which we cannot allow.
See Elkins v. Elkins,
Record on Appeal — Rule 81.12
Finally, the record on appeal fаils to comply with Rule 81.12. Rule 81.12(b) provides that “[n]o matter touching on the organization of the court, or any continuance, motion, or affidavit, not material to the questions presented for determination, shall be inserted in the rеcord on appeal.” In this case, a significant part of the legal file concerns a disputed settlement agreement and discovery matters. The legal file includes,
inter alia,
a motion to enforce settlement, motiоn to compel discovery, motion for sanctions,
memoranda in
support, and various related orders. None of these documents are relevant to husband’s claims on appeal, which challenge the trial court’s findings on mattеrs that had nothing to do with a settlement agreement or discovery. The provision of multiple irrelevant documents in the record compounds the burden created by the briefs failure to cite the record in its arguments.
See Fritz,
Conclusion
Rule 84.13(a) provides that allegations of error not properly briefed “shall not be considered in any civil appeal.”
See Fritz,
The appeal is dismissed.
Notes
. Although the argument under the fourth point defines what constitutes an "abuse of discretion,” the argument does not set out a standard of review because it does not explain whether the standаrd of review applicable to the error complained of, "The Trial Court's Award of Maintenance and Attorney's Fees,” is an abuse of discretion standard.
. Wife has requested that we award $2,500.00 in sanctions. Rule 84.19 allows us to аward “just and proper” damages
to
a respondent for a frivolous appeal. However, simply fail
Wife has also requested an award of attorney's fees on appeal. A party to an appeal may recover attorney's fees on appeal as a sanction for a frivolous appeal.
See Weinshenker,
Husband's motion for sanctions is denied.