Robert Dee Hoover v. Lynda S. Hoover

In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Western District
ROBERT DEE HOOVER, )
Appellant, )
v. ) WD81697
)
LYNDA S. HOOVER, )
Respondent. ) FILED: April 30, 2019
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MERCER COUNTY
THE HONORABLE SAMUEL D. FRANK, JUDGE
BEFORE DIVISION ONE: VICTOR C. HOWARD, PRESIDING JUDGE,
LISA WHITE HARDWICK AND GARY D. WITT, JUDGES
Robert Hoover (“Husband”) appeals from the judgment dissolving his
marriage to Lynda Hoover (“Wife”). Because of significant deficiencies in
Husband’s appellate brief that prevent us from determining what his actual claims
of circuit court error are, we dismiss his appeal.
Husband appears pro se. We struck his initial brief for multiple specific
violations of Rule 84.04. Husband filed an amended brief that was substantially
similar to the stricken brief. Wife subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Husband’s
appeal due to the deficiencies in his amended brief. We took Wife’s motion with
the case.
Rule 84.04 sets forth requirements for appellate briefing. “[C]ompliance
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.” Lattimer v. Clark, 412 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Mo. App. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “An appellant’s failure to substantially
comply with Rule 84.04 ‘preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for
dismissing the appeal.’” Wong v. Wong, 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo. App. 2013)
(citation omitted). Although Husband appears pro se, he “is subject to the same
procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying
the required contents of appellate briefs.” Lattimer, 412 S.W.3d at 422 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
First, Husband’s statement of facts violates 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. 2008) (citation omitted). Husband’s statement of facts is not a fair and
concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented. Instead, his
statement of facts contains mostly argumentative and conclusory statements, with
only sporadic references to the legal file and transcript. These deficiencies fail to
preserve Husband’s claims for appellate review. See Lattimer, 412 S.W.3d at 422.
2
Second, Husband’s point relied does not comply with Rule 84.04(d). His
multifarious point consists of a two-and-one-half page statement containing bare
allegations of approximately eight disparate errors. “When an appellant makes the
entire judgment one error and then lists multiple grounds therefore, the point
contains multiple legal issues in violation of Rule 84.04(d).” Smith v. Smith, 455
S.W.3d 26, 27 (Mo. App. 2014). “Multifarious points preserve nothing for
review.” Id. (citation omitted). Additionally, Husband’s point relied on does not
include a list of cases or other authority upon which he is principally relying, in
violation of Rule 84.04(d)(5).
Third, Husband’s argument fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). His argument
consists of only a relisting of the eight disparate errors alleged in his point relied on
and cites to no legal authority. “An argument must explain why, in the context of
the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error.” Washington v. Blackburn,
286 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Mo. App. 2009). The argument “‘should show how
principles of law and the facts of the case interact.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Husband’s argument does not. Moreover, Husband’s argument does not include a
concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each claim of error; a
concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review
and, if so, how it was preserved; and specific page references to the legal file or
transcript. The argument section of Husband’s brief is “‘so defective as to require
us and opposing counsel to hypothesize about the appellant’s argument and
precedential support for that argument[.]’” Nichols v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 399
3
S.W.3d 901, 904 (Mo. App. 2013) (citation omitted). Therefore, we cannot reach
the merits of his appeal. Id.
Occasionally, we will review non-compliant briefs of pro se appellants ex
gratia. Id. We do so, however, only “where the argument is readily
understandable.” Id. That is not the case here. To determine whether Husband is
entitled to relief, we would have “to comb the record for support for [his] factual
assertions, decipher [his] point on appeal, and locate legal authority for [his]
argument.” Wong, 391 S.W.3d at 919-20. In other words, we would have to act
as Husband’s advocate, which we cannot do. Id.
The appeal is dismissed.
___________________________________
Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
All Concur.
4