Lady Justice
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has dismissed an appeal after determining a couple’s amended brief failed to comply with the state’s mandatory appellate briefing rules.
The decision leaves in place a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Harps Food Stores.
David F. and Robin L. Mecey initially sued Harps Food Stores on June 13, 2023, in St. Francois County, according to the Sept. 23 decision before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
After the company filed its answer, it moved for judgment on the pleadings in December 2023.
The trial court converted the motion into one for summary judgment during a June 2024 hearing, and in November 2024 granted judgment in Harps’ favor.
The Meceys then appealed.
Prior to submission of their case, the Meceys twice sought permission to file amended briefs.
Their first request was denied after the appellate court found the proposed changes included substantive additions and deletions beyond the “minor descriptive clarifications” and citation corrections the couple had claimed.
A subsequent motion, limited to correcting citation errors, was initially denied but later granted after Harps consented.
Even with the amended filing, the appellate court ruled the Meceys’ brief violated multiple provisions of Rule 84.04, which outlines the requirements for appellate briefs.
The judges stressed that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and that the court could not overlook the deficiencies.
“We recognize the problems faced by pro se litigants, but we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers,” the opinion quoted from prior precedent.
Among the deficiencies, the court noted the Meceys’ statement of facts did not provide a clear, unbiased summary relevant to the issues presented.
The couple’s eight points on appeal also failed to comply with Rule 84.04(d), the opinion states.
That rule requires appellants to identify the specific trial court ruling challenged, concisely state the legal reasons for claiming reversible error, and explain why those reasons support reversal in the context of the case.
The court found the Meceys’ points neither followed the required format nor offered adequate legal reasoning. Some points were multifarious, combining multiple claims of error into a single point, while others challenged rulings the trial court never made.
The judges further concluded that the argument section of the Meceys’ brief violated Rule 84.04(e) because it failed to explain whether alleged errors were preserved for appellate review or state the applicable standards of review.
Because of the numerous violations, the appellate court held it could not reach the merits of the case, the opinion states.
Citing precedent, the opinion explained that to do so would require the court to essentially act as the Meceys’ advocate, reconstructing facts, speculating about claims of error and crafting arguments on their behalf, which it cannot do.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
The decision was authored by Presiding Judge Michael S. Wright, with Judges Philip M. Hess and Virginia W. Lay concurring.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Easter District case number: ED113183
