NEIL B. STEINER and DEBORAH G. STEINER v. ROBERT ROLFES and SUSAN ROLFES ( 2020 )

NEIL B. STEINER, )
and DEBORAH G. STEINER, )
)
Appellants, )
)
v. ) No. SD36454
) Filed: May 27, 2020
ROBERT ROLFES, )
and SUSAN ROLFES, )
)
Respondents. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY
Honorable Peggy D. Richardson, Judge
APPEAL DISMISSED
Neil B. Steiner and Deborah G. Steiner, (“the Steiners”), pro se appellants, appeal from the
trial court’s “Judgment of Dismissal,” granting a motion, filed by Robert and Susan Rolfes (“the
Rolfes”), to dismiss the Steiners’ petition. On appeal, the Rolfes filed a motion to dismiss the
Steiners’ appeal due to Rule 84.04 1 violations and other briefing deficiencies. We sustain the
motion and dismiss the appeal.
1
All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2020).
Facts and Procedural History
The Steiners filed a petition against the Rolfes alleging, in relevant part, that the Steiners
had the right to possession of certain real estate, and personal property located thereon, in Osage
Beach, Missouri. The Rolfes filed a motion to dismiss the Steiners’ petition, which the trial court
granted in its Judgment of Dismissal on November 21, 2019. This appeal followed.
Governing Principles of Review and Rule 84.04
This Court dismissed a previous appeal from the Steiners for Rule 84.04 briefing violations.
Tan-Tar-A Estates, L.L.C. v. Steiner, 564 S.W.3d 351 (Mo.App. S.D. 2018). The same fatal
deficiencies now appear in the Steiners’ brief before us. “Pro se litigants are required to follow
the same appellate rules as parties represented by lawyers. While we recognize the challenges
facing pro se litigants, we cannot bend those rules to benefit non-lawyers.” Id. at 352.
In this appeal, the following deficiencies materially impede impartial review.
•Statement of Facts: Rule 84.04(a)(3)&(c) requires the presentation of a “statement of
facts,” which “shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions
presented for determination without argument. All statements of facts shall have specific
page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal[.]” The Steiners’ brief does
not include a statement of facts in designation or in substance. Sub-headings styled
“Statement of the Case” and “Summary of the Argument” are presented, but are merely
cursory procedural histories, fail to include any citations to the record, and do not present
“all those facts utilized in the argument section[.]” Interest of R.J.M., 571 S.W.3d 219,
222 (Mo.App. S.D. 2019) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Our courts have
observed that this manner of failure is “often viewed” as an admission that if all (and only)
the relevant facts were before the reviewing court, “the appellant would surely lose.”
Kenneth Bell and NEZ, Inc. v. Baldwin Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., 561 S.W.3d 469, 473
(Mo.App. S.D. 2018) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
•Point Relied On: Rule 84.04(d) mandates that each point relied on “be in substantially
the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action],
because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the
legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’” The
Steiners’ brief contains no point relied on. “Given that a template is specifically provided
for in Rule 84.04(d)(1), appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate
points relied on.” Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017). The Steiners’
failure to present a point relied on, in compliance with Rule 84.04(d)(1), preserves nothing
2
for appellate review and is fatal to their appeal. Moreover, Rule 84.04(d)(5) directs that
“[i]mmediately following each ‘Point Relied On,’ the appellant . . . shall include a list of
cases, not to exceed four, . . . upon which that party principally relies.” The Steiners’
argument section cites no cases—the Steiners do not indicate that such authority was
unavailable, or provide any reason for the absence of such authority.
•Standard of Review: Rule 84.04(e) requires that “[f]or each claim of error, the argument
shall also include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for
appellate review; if so, how it was preserved; and the applicable standard of review.” The
Steiners’ brief disregards this requirement wholesale, and does not attempt (or succeed) at
complying therewith. “We will not, on review, convict a trial court of error on an issue
which was not put before it to decide.” State ex rel. Schmitt v. Schier Co., Inc., 594
S.W.3d 245, 254 (Mo.App. S.D. 2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
•Argument: Rule 84.04(e) directs that “[t]he argument shall substantially follow the order
of ‘Points Relied On.’ The point relied on shall be restated at the beginning of the section
of the argument discussing that point. The argument shall be limited to those errors
included in the ‘Points Relied On.’” As discussed, supra, the Steiners’ brief fails to present
a point relied on, and as a result, fails to comply with the instant requirement. Additionally,
Rule 84.04(e) indicates that “[a]ll factual assertions in the argument shall have specific
page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or
exhibits.” In no instance does the Steiners’ brief comply with this requirement.
The Rolfes’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal
The Rolfes filed a motion to dismiss the Steiners’ brief, arguing that such is not in
substantial compliance with Rule 84.04. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we agree, and
the Rolfes’ motion to dismiss the Steiners’ brief is granted. 2 Appeal dismissed.
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. – OPINION AUTHOR
GARY W. LYNCH, P.J. – CONCURS
NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J. – CONCURS
2
“When properly adopted, the rules of court are binding on courts, litigants, and counsel, and it is the court’s duty to
enforce them.” Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
3