In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE
KAYLISHA YOUNG, ) ) No. ED109900 Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court v. ) of Saint Louis County ) Cause No. 18SL-CC02639 MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ) SERVICES, ) Honorable Virginia W. Lay ) Respondent. ) Filed: June 28, 2022
OPINION
Kaylisha Young appeals from the circuit court’s judgment granting the Missouri
Department of Social Services’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. We are unable to reach the
merits of this appeal because Appellant’s brief falls significantly short of the minimum standards
required by Rule 84.04. Among its numerous deficiencies, Appellant’s brief contains no statement
of facts or any citation to the record. Even more problematically, Appellant’s brief contains no
Points Relied On as required by Rule 84.04(d). It is impossible for this Court to review the merits
of this appeal without first crafting arguments for Appellant and then finding support for those
arguments in the record on appeal. In addition to being a misuse of judicial resources, such an
undertaking would require this Court to become Appellant’s advocate. As a result, the appeal is
dismissed. Rule 84.04 provides a clear and cogent statement of the minimum requirements for
appellate briefing. Nevertheless, this Court and the Supreme Court of Missouri have all too
frequently been required to remind litigants and their counsel that the rules of appellate procedure
exist and are mandatory. See, e.g., Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. banc 2022). The
rules are not merely technicalities serving no meaningful purpose. Rather, they ensure that the
parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope
of review. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). This
information allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper
functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system. Id. 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. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 509; Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo.
banc 1978); Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624. For these reasons, an appellant’s failure to comply with
Rule 84.04 in any respect generally preserves nothing for review. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 509-10.
In recognition that the purpose of the Rules is not served if they are applied in an overly
technical manner, this Court has opted to review noncompliant briefs when minor shortcomings
did not impair our ability to understand the arguments. Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624. Our
preference is, after all, to decide appeals on their merits. Id. But we are also mindful that reiteration
of the importance of the Rules “without consequence implicitly condones continued violations and
undermines the mandatory nature of the rules.” Alpert v. State, 543 S.W.3d 589, 601 (Mo. banc
2018) (Fischer, C.J., dissenting). Moreover, when this Court exercises its discretion to review a
noncompliant brief, it technically runs afoul of Rule 84.13(a), which instructs that “allegations of
error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal[.]” (emphasis
added). For these reasons, only minor violations of the Rules should be excused.
2 Appellant’s brief does not contain minor violations. Appellant’s brief contains numerous
major violations of Rule 84.04 that render it impossible for this Court to meaningfully review the
issues without becoming Appellant’s advocate. Rule 84.04 contains nine subsections: (a) through
(i). Of those, six apply to an appellant’s brief. The brief submitted by Appellant in this case violates
all six subsections.
Rule 84.04(a) provides that appellant’s brief shall contain a table of contents with
references to page numbers as well as a table of cases arranged alphabetically. Although
Appellant’s brief contains a table of contents, it does not reference page numbers. Similarly,
Appellant’s brief contains a table of authorities, but the case names are not arranged alphabetically.
Rule 84.04(b) requires appellants to include a jurisdictional statement in their briefing. The
jurisdictional statement must “set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of
the particular provision or provisions of Article V, section 3, of the Constitution upon which
jurisdiction is sought to be predicated.” Rule 84.04(b). Appellant makes no reference to any basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction, thus dismissal is warranted. McGuire v. Edwards, 571 S.W.3d 661,
666 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019).
Rule 84.04(c) requires a statement of facts. The statement must “be a fair and concise
statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.”
Rule 84.04(c). It must contain “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on
appeal.” Id. Here, Appellant’s brief is missing a statement of facts of any kind and contains no
reference to the record on appeal, not even in the argument section of the brief. “A violation of
Rule 84.04(c) standing alone, constitutes grounds for dismissal of appeal.” Carlisle v. Rainbow
Connection, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).
3 Appellant’s brief does not contain any Points Relied On. Rule 84.04(d) requires the
appellant to include a specific section setting forth the claimed points of error, including a list of
cases, statutes, and other authority on which the party principally relies. These points are then to
be restated at the beginning of each section of the argument that discusses the point. Rule 84.04(e).
Appellant’s brief contains no separate section for the Points Relied On and lists no primary
authority in support of any point. Rather, Appellant’s brief starts simply with headings for each
portion of the argument.
Even were these headings intended to be Points Relied On, each one fails to meet the basic
requirements of Rule 84.04(d) necessary to preserve a point for review. Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires
an appellant to “(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.”
It also requires that “[t]he 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). “Given that a template is specifically provided for in
Rule 84.04(d)(1), appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied
on.” Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (quoting Scott v. King, 510
S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017)). A point on appeal that fails to substantially comply with
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE
KAYLISHA YOUNG, ) ) No. ED109900 Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court v. ) of Saint Louis County ) Cause No. 18SL-CC02639 MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ) SERVICES, ) Honorable Virginia W. Lay ) Respondent. ) Filed: June 28, 2022
OPINION
Kaylisha Young appeals from the circuit court’s judgment granting the Missouri
Department of Social Services’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. We are unable to reach the
merits of this appeal because Appellant’s brief falls significantly short of the minimum standards
required by Rule 84.04. Among its numerous deficiencies, Appellant’s brief contains no statement
of facts or any citation to the record. Even more problematically, Appellant’s brief contains no
Points Relied On as required by Rule 84.04(d). It is impossible for this Court to review the merits
of this appeal without first crafting arguments for Appellant and then finding support for those
arguments in the record on appeal. In addition to being a misuse of judicial resources, such an
undertaking would require this Court to become Appellant’s advocate. As a result, the appeal is
dismissed. Rule 84.04 provides a clear and cogent statement of the minimum requirements for
appellate briefing. Nevertheless, this Court and the Supreme Court of Missouri have all too
frequently been required to remind litigants and their counsel that the rules of appellate procedure
exist and are mandatory. See, e.g., Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. banc 2022). The
rules are not merely technicalities serving no meaningful purpose. Rather, they ensure that the
parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope
of review. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). This
information allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper
functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system. Id. 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. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 509; Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo.
banc 1978); Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624. For these reasons, an appellant’s failure to comply with
Rule 84.04 in any respect generally preserves nothing for review. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 509-10.
In recognition that the purpose of the Rules is not served if they are applied in an overly
technical manner, this Court has opted to review noncompliant briefs when minor shortcomings
did not impair our ability to understand the arguments. Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624. Our
preference is, after all, to decide appeals on their merits. Id. But we are also mindful that reiteration
of the importance of the Rules “without consequence implicitly condones continued violations and
undermines the mandatory nature of the rules.” Alpert v. State, 543 S.W.3d 589, 601 (Mo. banc
2018) (Fischer, C.J., dissenting). Moreover, when this Court exercises its discretion to review a
noncompliant brief, it technically runs afoul of Rule 84.13(a), which instructs that “allegations of
error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal[.]” (emphasis
added). For these reasons, only minor violations of the Rules should be excused.
2 Appellant’s brief does not contain minor violations. Appellant’s brief contains numerous
major violations of Rule 84.04 that render it impossible for this Court to meaningfully review the
issues without becoming Appellant’s advocate. Rule 84.04 contains nine subsections: (a) through
(i). Of those, six apply to an appellant’s brief. The brief submitted by Appellant in this case violates
all six subsections.
Rule 84.04(a) provides that appellant’s brief shall contain a table of contents with
references to page numbers as well as a table of cases arranged alphabetically. Although
Appellant’s brief contains a table of contents, it does not reference page numbers. Similarly,
Appellant’s brief contains a table of authorities, but the case names are not arranged alphabetically.
Rule 84.04(b) requires appellants to include a jurisdictional statement in their briefing. The
jurisdictional statement must “set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of
the particular provision or provisions of Article V, section 3, of the Constitution upon which
jurisdiction is sought to be predicated.” Rule 84.04(b). Appellant makes no reference to any basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction, thus dismissal is warranted. McGuire v. Edwards, 571 S.W.3d 661,
666 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019).
Rule 84.04(c) requires a statement of facts. The statement must “be a fair and concise
statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.”
Rule 84.04(c). It must contain “specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on
appeal.” Id. Here, Appellant’s brief is missing a statement of facts of any kind and contains no
reference to the record on appeal, not even in the argument section of the brief. “A violation of
Rule 84.04(c) standing alone, constitutes grounds for dismissal of appeal.” Carlisle v. Rainbow
Connection, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).
3 Appellant’s brief does not contain any Points Relied On. Rule 84.04(d) requires the
appellant to include a specific section setting forth the claimed points of error, including a list of
cases, statutes, and other authority on which the party principally relies. These points are then to
be restated at the beginning of each section of the argument that discusses the point. Rule 84.04(e).
Appellant’s brief contains no separate section for the Points Relied On and lists no primary
authority in support of any point. Rather, Appellant’s brief starts simply with headings for each
portion of the argument.
Even were these headings intended to be Points Relied On, each one fails to meet the basic
requirements of Rule 84.04(d) necessary to preserve a point for review. Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires
an appellant to “(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.”
It also requires that “[t]he 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). “Given that a template is specifically provided for in
Rule 84.04(d)(1), appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied
on.” Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (quoting Scott v. King, 510
S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017)). A point on appeal that fails to substantially comply with
Rule 84.04(d) is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Burgan v. Newman, 618 S.W.3d 712, 714
(Mo. App. E.D. 2021).
Appellant’s argument headings demonstrate that Appellant has not even attempted to
follow the format provided by Rule 84.04(d)(1). Appellant’s Point I states: “Counsel for
4 Defendant/Respondent failed to provide a written motion for judgment on the pleadings to counsel
for Petitioner/Appellant at least five (5) days before a court hearing in accordance with 44.01(d)
of Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure.” Appellant fails to identify an action or ruling by the trial
court that is being challenged. Instead, Appellant directly challenge’s counsel’s failure to comply
with Rule 44.01(d) requiring a written motion and notice of hearing to be served five days before
the hearing. Appellant also fails to provide a legal basis for reversal or to explain why the legal
basis in the context of this case supports reversal. Appellant’s Point I is deficient.
Appellant’s Point II states: “The Trial Court erroneously granted Defendant/Respondent
counsel’s oral motion for judgment on the pleadings based on only one pleading, instead of an
overview of the multiple pleadings filed by both parties’ counsel during the four (4) year period in
which the case was before the trial court.” Here, Appellant generally identifies the action of the
trial court that she challenges–the order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings. However,
Appellant again fails to provide a legal basis for reversal or to explain why the legal basis in the
context of this case supports reversal. Appellant’s Point II is deficient.
Appellant’s Point III states: “The trial court prematurely granted Defendant/Respondent
counsel’s oral motion for judgment on the pleadings without considering the material issues of fact
underlying Petitioner/Appellant’s joint stipulation of facts.” Here, just like Appellant’s Point II,
she generally identifies the action of the trial court that she challenges–the order granting motion
for judgment on the pleadings. However, Appellant again fails to provide a legal basis for reversal
or to explain why the legal basis in the context of this case supports reversal. Appellant’s Point III
is deficient.
Appellant’s argument section fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). Rule 84.04(e) requires a
“concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it
5 was preserved; and the applicable standard of review.” Appellant’s failure to include the applicable
standard of review or demonstrate preservation of the alleged errors for review as required by Rule
84.04(e) is grounds for dismissal. Burgan, 618 S.W.3d at 717. The purpose of the argument section
is to demonstrate how the principles of law and the facts of this case interact to support a claim for
reversible error. Id. at 715. Appellant’s argument section is bare and does not sufficiently develop
an argument for reversal. The argument under each of Appellant’s headings spans less than one
full page and includes a single citation. Although Appellant makes factual assertions, she fails to
provide specific page references to the record on appeal as required by Rule 84.04(e). Appellant’s
argument makes conclusory statements without meaningful legal analysis or supporting rationale.
Appellant leaves this Court to construct an argument for reversal on her behalf. We decline to do
so. Coyne v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 509, 520 (Mo. banc 2013).
Appellant’s appendix fails to comply with Rule 84.04(h) in multiple ways. First, Rule
84.04(h) explicitly requires an appendix to a brief on appeal to be filed as a separate document.
Appellant’s appendix was filed together with her brief as one document entitled “Petitioner’s Brief
and Appendix.” Second, Rule 84.04(h) requires the pages in the appendix to be consecutively
numbered beginning with page A1. Here, the appendix begins on page nine of Appellant’s brief,
and each document, not each page, within the appendix is numbered consecutively beginning with
“B1.” Finally, Rule 84.04(h) requires the appendix to contain the judgment in question. Although
a copy of the judgment is located within the legal file, Appellant’s appendix does not contain a
copy. Appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 84.04(h) is sufficient grounds for dismissal of her
appeal. Studt v. Fastenal Co., 326 S.W.3d 507, 508 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).
Due to the significant deficiencies in Appellant’s briefing, we must dismiss this appeal.
6 Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
John P. Torbitzky, J.
Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., and Kelly C. Broniec, J., concur.