In the Estate of Paul L. Sommerer, Deceased, Verna Mae Menteer, Personal Representative, v. Paul O. Sommerer, Appellant, Leroy James Sommerer, Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: In the Estate of Paul L. Sommerer, Deceased, Verna Mae Menteer, Personal Representative, v. Paul O. Sommerer, Appellant, Leroy James Sommerer, Respondent. Case Number: WD66658 Handdown Date: 10/09/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Patricia S. Joyce Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: James W. Gallaher, III and Dale C. Doerhoff Opinion Summary: Paul Sommerer appeals the probate court's denial of his claim for the value of services rendered to his deceased father. DISMISSED. Division holds: Sommerer's appeal is dismissed because his pro se brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. Citation: Opinion Author: Ronald R. Holliger, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Lowenstein and Smart, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Paul O. Sommerer appeals the denial by the probate court of his claim for the value of services rendered to his deceased father, Paul L. Sommerer. Sommerer's pro se brief completely fails to comply with Rule 84.04. His Point Relied On simply asserts that the trial court erred in ruling against him because he and his father had an agreement that he would be compensated for his services in caring for him. Rule 84.04(d) requires that the Point state the legal reason for

the claim of reversible error. In this court-tried case, Sommerer does not point to any lack of evidence to support the claim, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the court erroneously applied the law, or any other error by the trial court. More egregious is his failure to cite any legal authority in support of his claim. A pro se appellant is held to the same standards as counsel. Quarles v. Richman Gordman Stores, Inc., 68 S.W.3d 452, 454 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). It is not the function of the court to serve as an advocate for a party, represented or not. Id. Sommerer's brief is so deficient that we are unable to conduct a review of his appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.