OTT LAW

RICK LISEK AND JENNIFER LISEK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GREG TABER AND COLLEEN S. TABER, Defendants-Respondents

Decision date: September 12, 2023SD37897

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

1

In Division

RICK LISEK AND JENNIFER LISEK, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. SD37897 ) GREG TABER AND COLLEEN S. ) Filed: September 12, 2023 TABER, ) ) Defendants-Respondents. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Jason R. Brown

APPEAL DISMISSED

This case involved a money-damages claim brought by real-property owners, Rick Lisek and Jennifer Lisek ("Plaintiffs"), against Greg Taber and Colleen S. Taber ("Defendants"), who were alleged to have significantly damaged Plaintiffs' property ("the Property") after Defendants abandoned their attempt to purchase the Property via a contract for deed. This appeal timely followed the judgment entered in favor of Defendants on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claim was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and improper claim splitting. The judgment was entered after the circuit court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

2

Because Plaintiffs' brief fails to follow the mandatory process set forth in Rule 84.04, and those failures materially impede impartial review of the matter, we are unable to address any merit that the appeal might have had if properly preserved and presented. 1

As a result, we grant Defendants' well-founded motion to dismiss the appeal. Applicable Principles of Review Rule 84.04(a)-(e) provides the requirements for the contents of an appellate brief. Rule 84.04(c) requires the appellant's brief to include a "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." The facts relevant to a judgment produced by the Rule 74.04 process of summary judgment are solely those set forth in the Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts and responses thereto ("the SUMF"). Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 2020); see also Chopin v. Am. Auto. Ass'n of Mo., 969 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (appeal dismissed under Rule 84.04 for failing to include the material facts set forth in the SUMF within the brief's statement of facts). Here, Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts sets forth neither the facts from the SUMF that would attack the elemental facts that Defendants assert in support of their affirmative defenses based upon res judicata and improper claim splitting, nor does it include any responses thereto. Because Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts does not identify the relevant SUMF established by Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs' responses thereto, Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts violates Rule 84.04(c), which constitutes grounds for dismissing the appeal.

1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2023).

3

While we prefer to resolve appeals on the merits whenever possible, the case at bar presents deficiencies similar to those we faced in Exec. Bd. of Mo. Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conf. Ctr., Inc., 430 S.W.3d 274, 284-85 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014), which, along with several other cases recited in Defendants' motion to dismiss, supports the same result here. In every appeal, the appellant has the burden to demonstrate reversible error, see Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 687 (Mo. banc 1978), and "we have no duty to search the transcript or record to discover the facts which [might] substantiate a point on appeal." Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). To do so would cause us to impermissibly abandon our role as a neutral reviewer and act instead as an advocate for the appellant, to the prejudice of the responding party. Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 686; Smith v. City of St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 20, 29 (Mo. banc 2013) ("[a]n appellate court's role is . . . not to sift through the record . . . . [and] assume the role of advocate"). Because Plaintiffs have failed to present an argument for reversible error based upon the SUMF, nothing is preserved for our review, and Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

DON E. BURRELL, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – CONCURS

BECKY J.W. BORTHWICK, J. – CONCURS

Related Opinions

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930

affirmed

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

real-estateper_curiam1,904 words

Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

real-estatemajority3,613 words

Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073

reversed

In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.

real-estatemajority2,252 words

Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

real-estatemajority4,531 words

State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831

affirmed
real-estatemajority3,220 words