VINCENT TALDONE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents v. H.C. SHEPHARD, et al., Defendants-Appellants

1

VINCENT TALDONE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. H.C. SHEPHARD, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. SD38883

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY Honorable Aaron G. Koeppen, Judge DISMISSED Caroline B. Shephard 1 ("Shephard") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Camden County, Missouri ("trial court"), quieting title to real property in fee simple absolute in Vincent Taldone, Catherine Novetti, Mary Taldone, Frank Taldone, Joseph Taldone, Maria Dorto, and Felice Taldone, Jr. ("Plaintiffs"). Shephard raises two points on appeal. Plaintiffs argue in their brief that Shephard's appeal should be dismissed for

1 Caroline B. Shephard and H.C. Shephard are named as defendants in both the Petition to Quiet Title and Judgment. H.C. Shephard passed away prior to trial.

In Division

2

failure to follow the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04. 2 This Court agrees and finds Shephard's failure to comply with the appellate briefing requirements preserves nothing for our review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Briefing Deficiencies The mandatory requirements for the contents of an appellate brief are set forth in Rule 84.04. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022). Rule 84.04's mandatory nature is critical "in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made." Wright- Jones v. Mo. Ethics Comm'n, 544 S.W.3d 177, 178 n.2 (Mo. banc 2018) (quoting Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kan. City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007)). Appellants must comply with the mandatory minimum requirements for appellate briefing set forth in Rule 84.04 in order for us to review their appeal. T.G. v. D.W.H., 648 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (citing Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623-24 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)). "Rule 84.04 is not merely designed to enforce hyper-technical procedures or to burden the parties on appeal." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Rather, the sound policy and purpose behind the rules is to "ensure that the parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope of review ... which allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system." Young v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 647 S.W.3d 73, 75 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (citing Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624). "Compliance with Rule 84.04 is essential to ensure that this Court retains its role as a neutral arbiter and avoids becoming an advocate for any party." Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978).

2 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025).

3

Hutcheson v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 656 S.W.3d 37, 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). "[W]hen the deficiencies affect our ability to understand and adequately address the claims of error, the brief preserves nothing for review." Freeland v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 647 S.W.3d 22, 24 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624). We conclude that the deficiencies in Shephard's briefing impede our review and prevent us from reaching the merits of the appeal. Points Relied On Rule 84.04(d)(1) sets forth the requirements for a point relied on and provides a template to ensure the requirements are met. (1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:

(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.

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). There is no excuse for failure to submit an adequate point relied on given the fact that a template is specifically provided for in the rule. Sprueill v. Lott, 676 S.W.3d 472, 476-77 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023).

4

The requirements for the points relied on are mandatory as they are intended to provide this Court and the opposing party notice of the arguments presented by the appellant. "The function of [points relied on] is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review." Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo. banc 1997). A deficient point relied on requires the respondent and appellate court to search the remainder of the brief to discern the appellant's assertion and, beyond causing a waste of resources, risks the appellant's argument being understood or framed in an unintended manner. Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. [E.D.] 2017). "A point relied on which does not state 'wherein and why' the trial court [or administrative agency] erred does not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserves nothing for appellate review." Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. banc 2005).

Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505. Shephard's Points Relied On read as follows: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN VESTING TITLE IN THE PROPERTY TO RESPONDENTS, BECAUSE [PLAINTIFFS] CAME TO THEIR CLAIM OF AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, IN THAT THEY FAILED TO NOTIFY A VALID LIENHOLDER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LITIGATION DETERMINING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THUS MAKING ANY CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY BY [PLAINTIFFS] UNSUPPORTED.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF [PLAINTIFFS], BECAUSE ITS RELIANCE ON RULE 55.27[(g)] WAS FLAWED, IN THAT SUCH RULE DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE RAISING OF THE ISSUE OF RELIANCE ON A PREVIOUSLY FLAWED AND VOIDABLE JUDGMENT AT TRIAL.

In violation of Rule 84.04(d)(1), both of Shephard's points fail to identify a particular ruling or action by the trial court that was in error, but, instead, challenge only the ultimate result of the trial in "entering judgment in favor of" plaintiffs and "vesting title in the property to" plaintiffs. See Sprueill, 676 S.W.3d at 477 (internal quotations

5

and citation omitted) ("By challenging only the entry of judgment, the point is defective because its error allegations challenge the ultimate results of the case instead of a particular ruling of the trial court."). The [statement of] error contemplated by Rule 84.04(d)[(A)(1)] in a court- tried case is not the judgment itself but the trial court's actions or rulings on which the adverse judgment is based, such as explicitly or implicitly making or failing to make a certain factual finding, applying or failing to apply a particular rule of law, taking or failing to take a certain procedural action, etc.

Barnett v. Rogers, 400 S.W.3d 38, 48 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (quoting Wheeler v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 999 S.W.2d 279, 283 n.2 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999)). Identifying the ultimate result of the trial, the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A) and is defective. Sprueill, 676 S.W.3d at 477. Moreover, Shephard's points relied on fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) and (C). Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C) is "closely tied to the applicable standard of review[.]" In the Int. of R.R.S., 573 S.W.3d 717, 728 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019). Shephard fails to identify the standard of review anywhere in her briefing, making it impossible to construct a point relied on that complies with Rule 84.04. Points relied on that are not "constructed within the context of the appropriate standard of review" are fatally deficient. Id. at 726. "[I]n a court-tried civil case, the 'judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.'" Biggs by Next Friend Biggs v. Brinneman, 598 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (quoting Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)). "[A]

6

point on appeal must proceed under one of the Murphy v. Carron grounds, each of which requires a distinct analytical framework." Ebert v. Ebert, 627 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). "We can reverse a judgment 'only on a Murphy ground.'" Interest of S.M.W., 658 S.W.3d 202, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Smith v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 436 S.W.3d 700, 704 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014)). "If a point on appeal fails to identify which one of the Murphy v. Carron grounds applies, Rule 84.04 directs us to dismiss the point." Id. (quoting Ebert, 627 S.W.3d at 580 (citing Rule 84.04(d)(1)). Shephard has failed to articulate in her points, or her argument for that matter, which Murphy ground she relies upon in seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment. Moreover, Point I contends the trial court's judgment was in error "because [Plaintiffs] came to their claim of an ownership interest in the property with unclean hands," a legal conclusion; "in that [Plaintiffs] failed to notify a valid lienholder[,]" a factual finding; and, therefore, Plaintiffs' claim to the property is "unsupported." Point I fails to state concisely the legal reasons for Shephard's claim of reversible error or explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Point II likewise fails to identify or explain why Rule 55.27(g) supports a judgment in her favor in the context of the case. In contravention of Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B), neither of Shephard's points relied on specify on which ground she relies for reversal, thereby preserving nothing for our review. See Warren v. Dunlap, 532 S.W.3d 725, 728 n.3 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017 ). To engage in a meaningful review of Shephard's points, we would be required to take on the role of advocate to formulate for her which of the Murphy grounds are the basis for her

7

appeal where, at times, she appears to challenge the trial court's application of the law and, at other times, she appears to challenge the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence, yet she never uses the appropriate analytical framework required to do so. "Compliance with Murphy's requirements is a prerequisite to success on appeal; without such compliance (as here), an appellant's argument simply cannot succeed." Biggs, 598 S.W.3d at 702. Argument Rule 84.04(e) provides, in relevant part: "For each claim of error, the argument shall also include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it was preserved; and the applicable standard of review." "An appellant's failure to include the applicable standard of review or demonstrate preservation of the alleged errors as required by Rule 84.04(e) is grounds for dismissal." Hutcheson, 656 S.W.3d at 43 (citing Young, 647 S.W.3d at 78). In violation of Rule 84.04(e), Shephard's argument portion of her brief fails to include a concise statement describing how her alleged errors are preserved, and perhaps more problematic, fails to include the applicable standard of review. It is not this Court's duty to demonstrate for our own review how the appellant's alleged error is preserved for our review. See Hendrix v. City of St. Louis, 636 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ("It is not this [C]ourt's duty to supplement a deficient brief with its own research, to comb the record in search of facts to support an appellant's claim of error, or demonstrate it is properly preserved for appellate review."). The failure to comply with the preservation requirement of Rule 84.04(e) "can contribute to impeding meaningful

8

appellate review[.]" Hale v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 638 S.W.3d 49, 61-62 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021). Additionally, "[t]he standard of review is an essential portion of all appellate arguments; it outlines this [C]ourt's role in disposing of the matter" before it. Northup v. Bakula, 701 S.W.3d 678, 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting In re Marriage of Erickson, 419 S.W.3d 836, 845 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013)). Failure to include a standard of review in an appellate brief allows an appellant to construct his or her entire brief "unanchored and unmoored to the applicable standard of review, and most importantly, unrestrained by it." Int. of R.R.S., 573 S.W.3d at 725. It is not this Court's duty to research the standard of review applicable to an appellant's claimed errors. Acton v. Rahn, 611 S.W.3d 897, 903 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). Here, Shephard's "failure to include and integrate the applicable standard of review in [her] argument deprives it of any analytical or persuasive value" as it fails to outline for our review how the law and the facts of the case interact, and how the law therefore supports her claim of reversible error. Marck Indus., Inc. v. Lowe, 587 S.W.3d 737, 743, 746 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019). Failure to include the applicable standard of review in an appellate brief materially impairs impartial appellate review and is grounds for dismissal. State v. Yount, 710 S.W.3d 49, 58 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025). Accordingly, Shephard's appeal is dismissed. JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS