In Re: Danny Linn Jackson, Jimmy H. Young v. Martha Raney ( 2015 )

IN THE MISS
SOURII COUR
RT OF
F APPEALS
WEESTER
RN DISTRICT
T
IN RE: DANNY
D LIN
NN JACKSO
ON, )
)
Deceaased, )
)
JIMMY H.
H YOUNG, ) WD
D78584
)
Respo
ondent, ) Opiinion filed: December 88, 2015
)
vs. )
)
MARTH
HA RANEY, )
)
Appelllant. )
AP OM THE CIRCUIT CO
PPEAL FRO OURT OF WWORTH COUNTY, M
MISSOURI
ONORABLE
THE HO E JOEL MIILLER, JUD
DGE
Beffore Division
n One: Anth
hony Rex Gaabbert, Presiiding Judge,
Victor C. Howard,
H Judg
ge and Cynthhia L. Martinn, Judge
Martha
M Raney
y appeals th
he judgment of the probaate court findding that alll four of the issue
of decedent, Danny Linn Jackso
on, were entiitled to inheerit from theeir father. M
Ms. Raney arrgues
that the probate cou
urt erred in allowing th
he decedent’’s nephew, Jimmy Youung, to applly for
letters off administrattion and to charge
c the esstate for worrk done on pproperty of the estate, stoorage
of the prroperty, and gas money to drive to the propertyy; in allowinng paymentss for the perrsonal
representtative and th
he attorney fo
or the estate;; in approvinng the final ssettlement; in discoverinng the
decedent’s assets; and in not finding out who the true heirs were. Because of significant
deficiencies in Ms. Raney’s appellate brief, we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of
the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS
Danny Linn Jackson died intestate on March 23, 2014. Mr. Young was named personal
representative of the estate, and notice of the issuance of letters and of hearing on the matter was
mailed to the decedent’s issue, including Ms. Raney. Mr. Young filed a petition for
determination of heirship, and a hearing was held, followed by the probate court’s judgment
finding that Ms. Raney and three others were issue and heirs of the decedent and ordering that
each of the heirs receive notice of such information. Ms. Raney wrote a letter to the court,
stating that decedent’s other three biological children were adopted by adoptive parents and were
not the decedent’s children, and that they therefore had no legal right to his estate. Attached
were obituaries that Ms. Raney claimed supported her assertions. Another hearing was held, and
Ms. Raney appeared pro se, evidence was taken, and the determination of heirship was taken
under advisement. The probate court issued judgment determining that all four of decedent’s
biological issue were heirs, noting the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,
“other than obituaries[.]” This appeal by Ms. Raney followed.
DISCUSSION
“Rule 84.04 sets forth various requirements for appellate briefs and compliance with
these requirements 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.’” Leonard v.
Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704, 706 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Ameristar Casino
Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007)). “‘Violations of Rule 84.04 are
2
grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal.’” Id. (quoting Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518
(Mo. App. E.D. 1999). An appellant who proceeds pro se “is subject to the same procedural
rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of
appellate briefs.” Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City, 453 S.W.3d 271, 274 (Mo. App.
2014) (internal quotation omitted).
First, Ms. Raney’s jurisdictional statement is deficient. Rule 84.04(b) provides:
The jurisdictional statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate
the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of Article V, section 3,
of the Constitution whereon jurisdiction is sought to be predicated.
Ms. Raney’s jurisdictional statement merely names the case appealed and states she seeks review
“because she was an heir in the case and did not receive anything from the estate.” However,
Ms. Raney does not set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the applicability of a particular
provision of Article V, section 3, whereon the jurisdiction of this court is predicated. The
jurisdictional statement is, therefore, inadequate under the requirements of Rule 84.04(b).
Second, the statement of facts fails to comply with Rule 84.04(c), which requires “a fair
and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without
argument.” “The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate,
complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp’t Sec.,
261 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (internal quotes and citations omitted). Ms.
Raney’s statement of facts does not contain a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to
the questions presented. It instead contains merely a list of dates of filings and a docket entry,
and the date she received a copy of the docket sheet. As such the statement of facts does not
meet the requirements of Rule 84.04(c) and does not fulfill the purpose of the statement of facts.
Ms. Raney’s statement of facts therefore fails to preserve her claims for appellate review. See,
3
Snyder v. Snyder, 142 S.W.3d 780, 782 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). Furthermore her citations do not
specify the document to which the pages named belong, and do not match the legal file.
Next, Ms. Raney’s points relied on fail to comply with the requirement of Rule
84.04(d)(5) that “[i]mmediately following each ‘Point Relied On,’ the appellant… shall include a
list of cases, not to exceed four, and the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions or
other authority upon which that party principally relies.”
Furthermore, Ms. Raney’s argument is defective. The legal arguments she attempts to
make fail to make a connection between the law she cites and how those legal principles interact
with the facts of the case to render the probate court’s judgment erroneous. Most of Ms. Raney’s
arguments consist of an excerpt from a case or statute followed by assertions or conclusions that
Ms. Raney did not feel the actions of the personal representative or the court were right, but
make no connection between the law, the facts, and why her feelings on the matter make the
court’s judgment erroneous. The “argument should demonstrate how principles of law and the
facts of the case interact.” Scott v. Potter Elec. Signal Co., 310 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Mo. App. E.D.
2010). “A contention that is not supported with argument beyond conclusions is considered
abandoned.” State v. Bell, 266 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).
Finally, Ms. Raney does not include a concise statement of the applicable standard of
review for her claim as required by Rule 84.04(e).
Occasionally, non-compliant briefs of appellants are reviewed ex gratia. Tavacoli, 261
S.W.3d at 708. However, an abandoned claim is generally only reviewed where the argument is
readily understandable. Id. Such is not the case here. While the preference is to decide an
appeal on the merits, where a brief is so defective as to require the appellate court and opposing
counsel to hypothesize about the appellant’s argument and precedential support for it, the merits
4
cannot be
b reached. Rainey v. SSPS,
S Inc., 259
2 S.W.3dd 603, 605 ((Mo. App. W
W.D. 2008). To
address the
t merits off this appeal,, this Court would
w have tto become aan advocate ffor Ms. Raneey by
searching
g the record for the releevant facts of
o the case, speculating about the possible claim
ms of
error, and
d crafting a legal
l we cannot doo.
argumeent on her beehalf. This w
Accordingly,
A the appeal is
i dismissed..
______________________________________________
VICTOR CC. HOWARD D, JUDGE
ur.
All concu
5