YOUNG v. YOUNG (2026)

Introduction

This appeal stems from an unlawful detainer action brought by Steven M. Young and Michael D. Young, as Trustees of the William D. Young Revocable Trust No. 1 (“Trust”) (collectively “Respondents”) against their brother William H. Young (“Appellant”), seeking possession of a property located on White Oak Valley Road in Chesterfield, Missouri (“Property”). Appellant appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding immediate possession of the Property to Respondents. Appellant asserts seven points on appeal. However, this Court cannot reach the merits of Appellant's appeal because his brief fails to substantially comply with the briefing requirements of Supreme Court Rule 84.04.¹ Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Background

The underlying matter concerns the Property, which is owned by the Trust. The three brothers, Appellant and Respondents, are co-trustees of the Trust. While Appellant lived at the Property, Respondents decided the Property should either be sold or disposed of pursuant to the terms of the Trust. Following this decision, Respondents filed the underlying unlawful detainer action against Appellant.

After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Respondents and ordered that Respondents could recover immediate possession of the Property.

This appeal follows.

Discussion

After Appellant filed his brief, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal due to Appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04. The motion was taken with the case. This Court finds Appellant's brief fails to comply with the mandatory appellate briefing rules set forth in Rule 84.04. Thus, Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted.²

Rule 84.04: Briefing Requirements

Appellant appears pro se. This Court “recognize[s] the problems faced by pro se litigants, but we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 47 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting Barbero v. Wilhoit Props., Inc., 637 S.W.3d 590, 595 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)). Accordingly, pro se appellants, such as Appellant, are subject to the same rules, including Rule 84.04, as a party represented by an attorney. Pearson v. Keystone Temp. Assignment Grp., Inc., 588 S.W.3d 546, 549 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019).

Rule 84.04 sets forth the appellate briefing requirements and all appellants, including those acting pro se, must comply with the rule for this Court to review the appeal. Mecey v. Harps Food Stores, Inc., 661 S.W.3d 14, 16 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). Specifically, Rule 84.04 requires an appellate brief contain: (1) a detailed table of contents; (2) a jurisdictional statement; (3) a statement of facts; (4) points relied on; (5) an argument which substantially follows the order of the points relied on; and (6) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. Rule 84.04(a)(1)–(6). “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.” Renegar v. Borman, 712 S.W.3d 33, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (quoting Jones v. Impact Agape Ministries, 693 S.W.3d 122, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023)). “Failure to substantially comply with ‘Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for dismissal.’ ” Mecey v. Harps Food Stores, 721 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (quoting King v. King, 548 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018)).

“Appellate courts have discretion to review noncompliant briefs gratuitously, overlooking technical deficiencies, when the deficiencies do not impede review on the merits.” Whitehead v. Moore, 728 S.W.3d 871, 880 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Starcher v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 672 S.W.3d 861, 864 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)). However, we cannot reach the merits of the appeal “when the deficiencies affect our ability to understand and adequately address the claims of error[.]” Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Such is the case here.

Most critically, Appellant's statement of facts, points relied on, and arguments are all deficient. This Court cannot overlook these violations because they are not technical in nature; rather, they are serious and prevent meaningful appellate review. Each violation is discussed in turn.

Statement of Facts

Rule 84.04(c) requires an appellate brief include “a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” The rule further requires all statements of facts include specific page references to the record on appeal. Rule 84.04(c). To comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(c), an appellant must define the scope of the controversy by setting forth “an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” Clark v. Aranda, 730 S.W.3d 222, 227 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (quoting Pearson, 588 S.W.3d at 550). An appellant's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(c) is a sufficient basis to dismiss an appeal. Id. at 228.

Appellant's statement of facts barely skims the surface of the relevant facts necessary to give this Court an understanding of the controversy at hand. Rather, it consists mainly of arguments and his complaints with Respondents’ actions during the litigation of the case. As a result, Appellant fails to present this Court with an accurate, complete, and unbiased understanding of the relevant facts of the case. See id. at 227. Additionally, while some of the statements of fact include page references to the record on appeal, others do not. Without specific citations to the record, this Court is “left searching for a needle in a haystack[,]” as the legal file alone is 766 pages. Phox v. Boes, 702 S.W.3d 498, 504 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 645 S.W.3d 75, 83 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)).

“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.” Clark, 730 S.W.3d at 228. This we cannot do.

For the reasons stated above, Appellant's statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c).

Points Relied On

“Points Relied On define the scope of appellate review.” Kruse, 692 S.W.3d at 48. Rule 84.04(d) requires each point relied on: “(A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” To ensure compliance, the rule provides a simple fill-in-the-blank template: “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].” Id. “This rule is not a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality, rather it serves to notify the opposing party of the precise matters under contention and inform our Court of the issues presented for review.” Carmen v. Olsen, 611 S.W.3d 368, 371 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020).

Appellant's seven points relied on fail to substantially follow the aforementioned template. Given that a template is specifically provided to aid appellants in drafting their points relied on, “appellants simply have no excuse for failing to submit adequate points relied on.” Young v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., 647 S.W.3d 73, 77 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)).

Notably, Appellant fails to concisely state the legal reasons for any errors and explain why, within the context of the case, those legal reasons support a claim of reversible error. See Rule 84.04(d). The problem stems from Appellant's failure to identify the applicable standard of review. In appeals from actions for unlawful detainer, our review is limited to one of the Murphy v. Carron grounds: whether the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. See JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Tate, 279 S.W.3d 236, 237–38 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); see also Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). In order to comply with Rule 84.04, “a 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). This Court “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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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.” Ebert, 627 S.W.3d at 580.

Here, none of Appellant's points relied on specify which Murphy v. Carron ground he relies upon in seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment. In our desire to reach the merits of Appellant claims, we resorted to his argument sections. However, none of his arguments provide any clarity as to which Murphy v. Carron ground Appellant attempts to apply or base his argument upon.

As a result of Appellant's deficient points, this Court is left to wonder what are the precise matters presented for review. This Court cannot craft an allegation of error for Appellant. See Interest of S.M.W., 658 S.W.3d at 212. Nor will we engage in speculation because doing so risks Appellant's claim of error being misunderstood or framed in an unintended manner. See id.; see also Graham v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 737 S.W.3d 176, 190 (Mo. App. E.D. 2026).

For the reasons stated above, Appellant's points relied on violate Rule 84.04(d).

Argument

Rule 84.04(e) requires that, for each claim of error, an appellant “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.” Further, “[t]he argument section of an appellate brief must provide sufficient analytical support for the claim of reversible error.” Hicks v. Northland-Smithville, 655 S.W.3d 641, 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). “Rule 84.04(e) requires an argument to explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports a claim of reversible error.” Puetz v. Rice, 675 S.W.3d 652, 656 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023).

Although Appellant includes a preservation statement and a standard of review for each alleged error, they do not comply with Rule 84.04(e). With respect to Appellant's preservation statement, he does not provide a “concise statement” explaining whether the issue is in fact preserved. Instead, Appellant simply includes a list of documents and transcript pages, leaving this Court with the responsibility of determining whether any of the listed references support his contention that the issue is preserved. It is not this Court's duty to demonstrate an appellant's claim of error is properly preserved for appellate review. Surgery Ctr. Partners, LLC v. Mondelez Int'l, Inc., 647 S.W.3d 38, 44 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022).

Additionally, while Appellant includes a standard of review for each claim of error, not one asserts the applicable standard of review for an appeal from an unlawful detainer action. See supra Points Relied On. Interestingly, some points provide multiple standards of review, leaving this Court to determine which one, if any, applies to the claim of error. “While it would be easy enough for this [C]ourt to determine the applicable standard of review, it is not our duty to supplement the deficient brief with our own research.” Estate of Allen, 615 S.W.3d 851, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (quoting Waller v. Shippey, 251 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)).

Furthermore, “[i]n every appeal, the appellant has the burden to demonstrate reversible error[.]” Lisek v. Taber, 674 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023). Appellant's seven argument sections consist of a series of complaints about certain actions taken by the trial court or Respondents, and conclusory assertions of impropriety and error. Appellant's conclusory assertions and arguments that rest merely on broad-brush strokes, which generalize his complaints, are not sufficient for this Court to find reversible error. See Hicks, 655 S.W.3d at 649. “A submission of error, being without reasoned argument does not require, or even allow, a decision.” Kader v. Harris Stowe State Univ., 712 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting Firestone v. VanHolt, 186 S.W.3d 319, 324 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005)).

But most importantly, as previously stated, Appellant fails to identify which Murphy v. Carron ground supports each of his claims of reversible error, violating Rule 84.04(e). See Ebert, 627 S.W.3d at 580. In turn, his arguments do not follow any analytical framework and lack any persuasive value. “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 by Next Friend Biggs v. Brinneman, 598 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020).

For the reasons stated above, all of Appellant's argument sections violate Rule 84.04(e).

Conclusion

In summary, Appellant's brief violates Rule 84.04(c)–(e) and, thus, this Court cannot reach the merits of his appeal. To cure the deficiencies, this Court would need to assume the role of Appellant's advocate by sifting through the legal record, reconstructing the statement of facts, formulating his points relied upon, setting forth the appropriate standard of review, and crafting a legal argument on Appellant's behalf. See generally Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 624. This we cannot do.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2026).

2.   Respondents’ motion also seeks sanctions on the ground that Appellant's appeal is frivolous, pursuant to Rule 84.19. “Rule 84.19 permits us to award costs to the respondent if we determine that an appeal is frivolous.” Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 662 S.W.3d 168, 174 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 645 S.W.3d 75, 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)). Rule 84.19 sanctions are a drastic remedy and this Court exercises its discretion in awarding damages with great caution, recognizing that “[a]n inadequate brief does not render an appeal frivolous[.]” Id. at 174–75. Given that we are directed to exercise caution in granting Rule 84.19 sanctions, this Court is not persuaded that Appellant's appeal is frivolous. See id. at 175. Therefore, Respondents’ request for sanctions is denied.

Michael S. Wright, Judge

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Presiding Judge and Robert M. Clayton III, Judge concur.