Willie C. Fortune vs. CTA Certified Transmission

Sep 1, 2026
WD88370

Willie Fortune appeals from the circuit court‘s judgment finding in favor of CTA Certified Transmission (“CTA“) and against him after a trial de novo. We dismiss the appeal due to Fortune‘s briefing deficiencies, including the submission of erroneous citations and fictitious cases, which violate the Rules of Appellate Procedure and impede our meaningful review of his claims.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2024, Fortune filed a small claims court petition against CTA. In his petition, he alleged his vehicle was damaged when he took it to CTA to repair the transmission. A hearing was held, during which Fortune and two CTA employees testified. The small claims court entered judgment in favor of CTA and against Fortune.

Fortune filed an application for a trial de novo and an amended petition asserting a negligence claim against CTA. A bench trial was held. Fortune appeared pro se and testified. CTA‘s district manager also testified. The court entered judgment in favor of CTA and against Fortune. Fortune appeals.

GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

On appeal, Fortune raises six points challenging evidentiary rulings, the denial of his request for sanctions or an adverse inference, the timing of the court‘s ruling on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, alleged procedural due process violations, and the denial of his motion to compel certain evidence.1 He appears pro se. “We hold pro se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys, and we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules.” Kim v. Kim, 431 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo. App. 2014).

Rule 84.04 sets forth appellate briefing requirements. Compliance with Rule 84.04 is “mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.” Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Consequently, the failure to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for review and establishes grounds for dismissal.” State ex rel. Dep‘t of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support Div. v. Shipley, 605 S.W.3d 92, 95 (Mo. App. 2020).

Fortune‘s brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. His table of authorities violates Rule 84.04(a)(1), which requires him to list “cases . . . and other authorities cited, with reference to the pages of the brief where [the authorities] are cited.” Although Fortune cites fourteen cases in his brief, his table of authorities lists only five cases, three of which do not appear in his brief. Additionally, Fortune‘s table of authorities lists six Supreme Court Rules, four of which do not appear in his brief, and omits one rule that does appear in his brief. Moreover, his table of authorities provides no page references as to where the cases and rules are cited in the argument section of his brief. What is more disconcerting, however, are the deficiencies in the cited cases themselves.

In Fortune‘s brief, a degree of inaccuracy is found in every case citation provided. The most repeated inaccuracy, in fifteen instances, is the citation of cases that bear no relation to the issues of law for which they are cited. For cases that do have some relevance to the issue for which they are cited, Fortune substantively misstates the legal proposition from those cases. Another inaccuracy is pin-citing to parts of a case where no actual legal proposition exists; for example, two cites in Fortune‘s brief refer to a page that is in the factual and procedural history of the cited case.

Most notably, three cases in Fortune‘s brief are completely fictitious.2 Filing an appellate brief with spurious citations represents a “flagrant violation of the duties of candor Appellant owes to this Court.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. 2024). Fortune submitted the brief in his name and certified its compliance with Rules 55.03 and 84.06(c) as a self-represented person. Rule 55.03(c) provides, in relevant part:

By presenting and maintaining a claim . . . in a pleading, motion, or other paper filed with or submitted to the court, an attorney or party is certifying that to the best of the person‘s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that: . . . [t]he claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument[.]

Given the pervasive nature of the rule violations and erroneous citations of law, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of Fortune‘s claims on appeal. His reliance on nonexistent case law and his misrepresentations regarding case holdings constitute “an abuse of the judicial system.” Karlen, 692 S.W.3d at 52. “While we prefer to reach the merits of a case, sometimes excusing technical deficiencies in a brief, we will not do so if the brief is so deficient it requires this court to serve as an advocate for any party to an appeal.” Puetz v. Rice, 675 S.W.3d 652, 655-56 (Mo. App. 2023). Fortune‘s substantial failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 mandates the dismissal of this appeal. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d at 53.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed.

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE

All Concur.

Notes

1
CTA did not file a brief in response to Fortune‘s appeal.
2
Fortune relies on one fictitious case five times, the second fictitious case two times, and the third fictitious case one time.