RICK LISEK AND JENNIFER LISEK, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GREG TABER AND COLLEEN S. TABER, Defendants-Respondents
Decision date: September 12, 2023SD37897
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- RICK LISEK AND JENNIFER LISEK, Plaintiffs-
- Respondent
- GREG TABER AND COLLEEN S. TABER, Defendants-
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Jason R
Disposition
Dismissed
Procedural posture: Appeal from summary judgment
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
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 74.04cited
Rule 74.04
- Rule 84.04cited
Rule 84.04
Cases
- chopin v am auto assn of mo 969 sw2d 248followed
Chopin v. Am. Auto. Ass'n of Mo., 969 S.W.2d 248
- green v fotoohighiam 606 sw3d 113cited
Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113
- smith v city of st louis 395 sw3d 20cited
Smith v. City of St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 20
- thummel v king 570 sw2d 679cited
Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679
- wilson v carnahan 25 sw3d 664cited
Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664
Holdings
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
Issue: Whether an appellant's brief that fails to include the material facts from the Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (SUMF) and responses thereto, as required by Rule 84.04(c), warrants dismissal of the appeal.
Yes; failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c) by not identifying the relevant SUMF and responses in the statement of facts constitutes grounds for dismissing the appeal, as it materially impedes impartial review.
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
The Switzer Living Trust, U/A Dated February 5, 2019, by and through Alan T. Switzer & Gayle L. Switzer, As Co-Trustees vs. Lake Lotawana Association, INC., Et Al.(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District#WD86307
J.D., a minor, by and through Next Friend, MELISSA STORMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JENNIFER SANDERS, DR. MARK PIPER, and HARTVILLE R-II SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Respondents(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 3, 2024#SD37824
WILLARD SCHNURBUSCH and CAROL SCHNURBUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants vs WEST PLAINS REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER, Defendant-Respondent(2019)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 22, 2019#SD35385
Kevin LaBranche vs. Circuit Court of Jackson County(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District#WD86579
PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930
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.
MARTIN LEIGH, PC, Respondent v. BETTY WILLIAMSON, ET AL., and DAN HORGAN, ET AL., Respondents and LOANCARE, LLC., Appellant(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictSeptember 19, 2024#SD38172