Vance Clark, Appellant, v. Benjamin Aranda, Respondent.

VANCE CLARK, ) No. ED113541 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Francois County v. ) ) The Honorable Wendy Wexler Horn BENJAMIN ARANDA, ) ) Respondent. ) Filed: December 16, 2025

Vance Clark appeals from the circuit court's judgment dismissing his petition against Benjamin Aranda. 1 Because Mr. Clark failed to substantially comply with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss the appeal. Discussion

Mr. Clark appears on his own behalf, without the assistance of an attorney. He has the right to do so. Pearson v. Keystone Temp. Assignment Grp., Inc., 588 S.W.3d 546, 549 (Mo. App.

1 The circuit court granted Respondent Aranda's motion to dismiss Mr. Clarks' petition for failure to state a claim, and entered judgment dismissing Mr. Clark's petition without prejudice. Generally, a dismissal without prejudice is not a final, appealable judgment. Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 430 S.W.3d 260, 265 (Mo. 2014); Haidul v. Haidul, 461 S.W.3d 835, 836 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). However, this Court finds the circuit court's dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief was tantamount to a determination that Mr. Clark has no cause of action, resulting in a final, appealable judgment. See Jones v. Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct., 162 S.W.3d 53, 58 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005); Siebert v. Peoples Bank, 632 S.W.3d 461, 465-66 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021).

2

E.D. 2019). This Court cannot and will not penalize Mr. Clark for not utilizing the assistance of an attorney; but likewise, this Court cannot and will not lend him any assistance in perfecting his appeal because he is not represented by counsel. Id. This is not a matter of our personal preference, but rather the demands placed upon us by our oaths of office, our commitment to uphold the rule of law, and the very nature of the adversarial process, which requires fair, impartial and disinterested decision makers." Id. (internal quotation omitted). "We would be true to none of these principles if we applied the law in one manner to litigants represented by counsel and then in a different manner to litigants that are not represented by counsel." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, pro se appellants such as Mr. Clark are bound by the same rules as a party represented by an attorney. Id. They must comply with the Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Id. This Court does not grant pro se appellants preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules. Id. at 550. "This is not from lack of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirements of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties". Id. Rule 84.04 sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Id. at 549. "Compliance with the briefing requirements under Rule 84.04 is mandatory." Id. at 550. "This is to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and arguments that have not been asserted". Id. "Compliance with the rule also provides the appellate court with a more complete understanding of the relevant issues and allows the opposing party to develop counter arguments." Id. "Perfection is not required, but an appellant must substantially comply with the rules." Id. "Failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for review and is a proper ground for dismissing an appeal." Id.; Rule 84.13 (mandating that allegations of error not properly

3

briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal). Mr. Clark failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04. In particular, his fact statement and points relied on are all deficient. Statement of Facts

Rule 84.04(c) requires a fair and concise statement of facts "relevant to the question presented for determination without argument." "An appellant has the duty to define the scope of the controversy by stating the relevant facts fairly and concisely." Yarnall ex rel. Yarnall v. Choudhury, 23 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). "The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to set forth an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 550. Mr. Clark's fact statement fails this essential purpose. Mr. Clark's recitation of the facts regarding his action against Mr. Aranda is little more than a recitation of the procedural history of the case. "A statement of facts that consists of nothing more than an abbreviated procedural history fails to provide an understanding of the case and is deficient." Yarnall, 23 S.W.3d at 921 (internal quotation omitted). "Failure to include, in the statement of facts, the facts upon which an appellant's claim of error is based fails to preserve the contention for appellate review." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 550. Mr. Clark's statement of facts is not "a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the questions presented for determination." Mr. Clarks' fact statement omits many, if not all of the relevant facts needed for review of this case. His fact statement fails to provide a basic understanding of the case, and instead presumes this Court has an understanding of the background and context of the case. In his points relied on, Mr. Clark contends the circuit court erroneously granted Mr. Aranda's motion to dismiss because the factual allegations in his petition stated a claim. Those supposed factual allegations do not appear in the statement of facts. See Angle v. Grant, 997 S.W.2d 133, 134 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999). In fact, no part of Mr. Clark's petition appears

4

in his statement of facts. Mr. Clark fails to even inform this Court of what kind of action he asserted against Mr. Aranda. Mr. Clark's statement of facts does not clearly and succinctly present the facts necessary to determine whether he properly pled his claims against Mr. Aranda. The same is true regarding the facts necessary to determine whether the circuit court erroneously denied Mr. Clark's motions for default judgment and directed verdict, Mr. Clark's other two points on appeal. The necessary facts do not appear in Mr. Clark's statement of facts. "An appellant must include facts relevant to the issues to be determined by this Court." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 550. Mr. Clark failed to do so. Because Mr. Clark's fact statement omits facts necessary to determine his points on appeal and fails to provide an understanding of the case, his fact statement is therefore deficient. To conduct any meaningful review, this Court would be forced to shoulder the inappropriate burden of combing through the record, to ferret out and reconstruct the facts of the case. This would require us to act as an advocate for Mr. Clark, which we cannot do. Kramer v. Park-Et Rest., Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). Mr. Clark's failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c) is a sufficient basis to dismiss this appeal. Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 550; Yarnall, 23 S.W.3d at 921 (dismissing solely due to deficient fact statement). Points on Appeal

Mr. Clark also failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04(d), which sets out the requirements for an appellant's points relied on. "An appellant's points relied on are an important component of any appellate brief." Auman v. Richard, 672 S.W.3d 277, 281 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). "[A] point relied on defines the scope of appellate review. Hutcheson v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Fam. Support Div., 656 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (internal quotation omitted). "The purpose of the points relied on is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters

5

which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues before it." Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 41 (internal quotation omitted). "The requirement that the point relied on clearly state the contention on appeal is not simply a judicial word game or a matter of hyper-technicality on the part of the appellate courts." Gan v. Schrock, 652 S.W.3d 703, 709 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (internal quotation omitted). Rather, the points relied on are designed to compel the parties to make a specific point and to concisely state why under the facts and the law the challenged ruling was erroneous. Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 41. When, as here, the appellate court is reviewing the decision of a trial court, Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires each point must: (A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (b) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

To ensure compliance, the drafters of the Rule even set forth a "virtual roadmap" for the preparation of a point relied on in an appellate brief. Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 42; Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 551. The rule provides that the point shall 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].

Rule 84.04(d)(1). "Given that a template is specifically provided ... appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied on." Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 42 (internal quotation omitted). A point on appeal that fails to substantially comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d) is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 43; Mello v. Williams, 73 S.W.3d 681, 686 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002).

6

Mr. Clark sets forth nine points relied on in his appellant's brief. None of the points follow the template provided in Rule 84.04(d). Points I-VII allege the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Aranda's motion to dismiss. Except for citing to a different count and cause of action in the petition, the points read the same: The trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Count [I – VII] for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the factual allegations in the petition state a claim of action ....

Though each of these points relied on identifies the challenged ruling and a legal reason for that claim of error, none of the points state the "in that" requirement of the rule which requires Mr. Clark to explain why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Points I-VII provide no facts from the case and instead merely assert a rule of law. Abstract statement of law, standing alone, do not comply with the rule. Rule 84.04(d)(4); Gan, 652 S.W.3d at 709. Instead, a point relied on should provide insight into the facts of the case ...." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 551; Gan, 652 S.W.3d at 709. To address Mr. Clark's points would require this Court to guess why his legal reason constitutes error and then comb through the record and ferret out facts that may support his claim of reversible error. This we cannot do. This Court cannot speculate about facts to support a claim of error. "This Court has no duty to review the argument portion of [the amended] brief to ascertain his contentions." Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 43 (internal quotation omitted). Point VIII and Point IX are also deficient. Though the points relied on identify the challenged ruling and provide some facts, neither point states the "because" requirement of the rule which requires Mr. Clark to identify the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error. The points, therefore, are deficient. Point VIII reads:

7

The trial court erred in denying appellant Clark's Rule 74.05 motion for entry of default judgment in that respondent Aranda was properly served with the petition in compliance with Rule 55.33(a) and, thereafter, failed to timely file a requisite responsive pleading in compliance with Rule 55.25.

Point IX reads:

The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for directed verdict in that appellant Clark is entitled to a directed verdict as a matter of law because his claims are proven through the documents attached to the petition with no factual questions remaining for a jury to determine because Defendant Aranda has failed to impeach or contradict those documents or establish any affirmative defenses to the petition's seven causes of action.

A deficient point relied on requires the respondent and this Court to search the remainder of the brief, and the record to discern, refine, and supplement the points. Beyond causing a waste of resources, this creates the danger that we will interpret and frame Mr. Clark's contentions differently than he intended. Auman, 672 S.W.3d at 281; Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 43; Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). "If the appellate court must search the argument portion of the brief or the record on appeal to determine or clarify the nature of the asserted claims, the court may interpret the claims differently than the opponent or differently than was intended by the party asserting the claim." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 552- 53 (internal quotation omitted). Mr. Aranda, in his brief to this Court, maintains Mr. Clark's points relied on are deficient and noncompliant. To address Points VIII and IX would require this Court to speculate about the legal reason for the claim of error. Again, this we cannot do. When confronted with a deficient point relied on, it is not proper for this Court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justifications and circumstances ." Acton v. Rahn, 611 S.W.3d 897, 902 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (internal quotation omitted). Such speculation would place this Court in the role of an advocate for Mr. Clark, which is an inappropriate role for this Court. Id.

8

Because Mr. Clark did not explain why, in the context of the case, the legal reasons set out in Points I-VII support the claim of reversible error, and because Mr. Clark did not articulate legal reasons for the alleged errors in Points VIII and IX, he not only failed to give Mr. Aranda notice of the "precise matters which must be contended with," but also failed to inform this Court of the issues before it. To conduct any meaningful review would require this Court to act as an advocate for Mr. Clark, which we cannot do. Mr. Clark's points relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and his failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d) is grounds for dismissal. See Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 43; Mello, 73 S.W.3d at 686. Conclusion

"The function of the appellate court is to examine asserted error, not to serve as an advocate for any party on appeal." Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 552 (internal quotation omitted). When an appellant, such as Mr. Clark, files a brief that is "'not in conformity with the applicable rules and does not sufficiently advise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, this Court is left with the dilemma of deciding the case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency.'" Id. (quoting Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978)). "'Courts should not be asked or expected to assume such a role.'" Id. (quoting Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 686). This Court cannot become advocates for an appellant by speculating about facts and arguments that have not been made. Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 552. It is not the function of an appellate court to search the record to identify possible errors and research any issues so revealed. Id. An appellate court prefers to dispose of a case on the merits rather than to dismiss an appeal for deficiencies in the brief. Id. at 553. However, in some cases, a brief may be so deficient that

9

it precludes appellate review. Id. at 552. And such is the case here. The Missouri Supreme Court has recently cautioned that "[t]he appellate courts' continued reiteration of the importance of the briefing rules without enforcing any consequence implicitly condones continued violations and undermines the mandatory nature of the rules." State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 728–29 (Mo. banc 2022) (internal quotation omitted); Gan, 652 S.W.3d at 710-11. Though we retain discretion to review an appeal despite briefing deficiencies, we will not exercise our discretion in favor of review where the deficiencies impede disposition on the merits. We are not able to conduct a review of this case without becoming Mr. Clark's advocate. Consequently, because Mr. Clark failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, we dismiss this appeal.

___________________________________ A NGELA T. QUIGLESS, JUDGE Renee D. Hardin-Tammons, P.J. and Thomas C. Clark, II, J., concur.