SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS PLAINTIFF ERICA DOSS v. JANAE BRUCE (2026)

Janae Bruce (“Bruce”) appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment in an interpleader action filed by Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”) arising out of competing claims to insurance proceeds. Bruce first argues the trial court's distribution of the interpleader proceeds was against the weight of the evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion. Bruce also contends the trial court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in distributing the interpleader proceeds. Because Bruce fails to provide a transcript of the hearing in contravention of Rule 81.12 ¹ and fails to substantially comply with appellate court briefing requirements under Rule 84.04, we must dismiss the appeal.

Factual and Procedural Background 2

On June 22, 2023, a collision occurred between two motor vehicles near the intersection of East 31st Street and Kensington Avenue in Jackson County, Missouri. Janae Bruce, Erica Doss, Dominique Johnson, and a minor child (“Child”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) were each occupants of one of the two vehicles and were injured in the collision.

Prior to the collision, Safeco had issued a policy of automobile insurance which covered one of the vehicles. The Safeco insurance policy provided liability coverage, with limits of $50,000 per accident. Following the collision, Safeco believed the Defendants had sustained injuries in the collision, and that the Defendants may make claims for compensation against Safeco's insured for injuries in amounts in excess of the insured's coverage. Accordingly, on January 11, 2024, Safeco filed a petition for interpleader against the Defendants. In their prayer for relief, Safeco sought to pay their policy proceeds of $50,000 into the court, asked that the Defendants be required to interplead their competing claims to the court and the court divide such proceeds among the Defendants as it so determined, and that Safeco be discharged from any further liability to such Defendants. In due course, the trial court ordered Safeco to deposit the $50,000 with the circuit clerk, discharged Safeco from liability with respect to the interpleader action and liability to indemnify its insured, and dismissed Safeco from the action. Then, on November 5, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the competing claims to the interplead funds. The trial court found the combined damages of the Defendants exceeded the amount of the interplead funds. The trial court then awarded each Defendant $12,500 from the proceeds. Bruce appeals.

Standard of Review

In interpleader actions, the standard of review is that the “judgment of the trial court will be sustained unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law.” Great W. Cas. Co. v. Carr, 642 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting Anglen v. Heimburger, 803 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990)).

Analysis

In two points on appeal, Bruce argues the trial court misapplied the law in its distribution of the interpleader proceeds and the distribution was against the weight of the evidence. In doing so, she asserts the trial court abused its discretion. We do not reach the merits of this appeal, however, because we do not have an adequate record in violation of Rule 81.12 and because of briefing deficiencies in violation of Rule 84.04. We address each in turn.

Rule 81.12

“Our review of the issues on appeal is limited to the information contained in the record presented.” In re S.R.W., 715 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting In re T.C.T., 165 S.W.3d 529, 533 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005)). “In creating the record on appeal, Rule 81.12(c) requires that the appellant order the transcript which shall ‘contain the portions of the proceedings and evidence not previously reduced to written form and necessary to determination of the issues on appeal.’ ” Id. Given that our review is limited to the information contained in the record, the “failure to provide a transcript is more than a procedural deficiency.” Id. (quoting T.C.T., 165 S.W.3d at 533). Thus, “[i]f there is no evidence from the record that will establish an appellant's claim, we do not convict a trial court of error.” In re B.W.R., 728 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting In re D.D.C., 351 S.W.3d 722, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011)).

Here, the trial court held a hearing on the competing claims to the interplead funds on November 5, 2024. It is at this hearing that Bruce and the other Defendants were provided the opportunity to set forth all evidence of their competing claims to the interplead funds. To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in its allocation of the funds among the Defendants, we must review the evidence presented at this hearing. Here, however, we cannot because we have no transcript. This leaves us uncertain as to why the trial court divided the interpleader proceeds in the manner that it did. As such, while Bruce asks this Court to review the trial court's decision, her failure to provide a transcript of the trial court's evidentiary hearing makes it impossible for us to do so.

It is the duty of the Appellant “to file the transcript and to prepare a legal file so that the record contains all the evidence necessary for us to make determinations on the issues raised.” Walters v. State, 306 S.W.3d 208, 210 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting Evans v. State, 70 S.W.3d 483, 486 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)). Although Bruce did prepare and file the legal file required by Rule 81.12, she did not file a transcript by which we can review the claims she makes regarding the interpleader hearing. In sum, there is nothing here for us to review. See D.B. v. D.H., 348 S.W.3d 179, 180 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (“In the absence of the required record, there is nothing for us to review.”).

Rule 84.04

Rule 84.04's requirements as to briefing are mandatory to “ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made.” Amrine v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 726 S.W.3d 800, 806 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Green v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 652 S.W.3d 370, 374 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)). “An appellant's failure to adhere to the briefing standards outlined in Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appeal and is [also] grounds for dismissal.” Whitehead v. Moore, 728 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting Shelton v. Shelton, 717 S.W.3d 810, 814-15 (Mo. App. W.D 2025)).

First, we note that Bruce's initial brief was stricken. This Court notified Bruce of the deficiencies in such brief. Subsequently, Bruce filed an amended brief and then a superseding amended brief. Neither of these corrected all the briefing deficiencies which this Court advised Bruce were present. “Where a party has been warned of briefing deficiencies and persists in repeating the same errors, we should not act as an advocate for [the appellant] to overcome these problems.” Chastain v. City of Kan. City, 728 S.W.3d 513, 523 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Pickett v. Bostwick, 667 S.W.3d 653, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)). Thus, when an appellant makes no effort to correct the deficiencies in amending their stricken brief, after being put on notice of the inadequacies, dismissal is particularly appropriate. Acton v. Rahn, 611 S.W.3d 897, 903 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (citation omitted).

Statement of Facts

“Rule 84.04(c) requires the appellant to include ‘a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.’ ” Chastain, 728 S.W.3d at 521 (quoting Rule 84.04(c)). “[T]he primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.” In re K.M.D., 726 S.W.3d 87, 96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Shelton, 717 S.W.3d at 815). “Further, ‘[a]ll statement of facts shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.’ ” Amrine, 726 S.W.3d at 807 (quoting Rule 84.04(c)).

Bruce's statement of facts is simply incomplete. Substantively, we can discern that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, but Bruce did not detail the independent claims of each Defendant or herself whatsoever.³ The one-page statement of facts barely skims the surface of the case. Thus, we do not have a “statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination” as required. See Rule 84.04(c). Further, the statement of facts contains inaccurate citations to the record on appeal leaving Bruce's factual assertions unsupported by the record. Without accurate citations to the legal file, we “are left searching for a needle in a haystack[.]” Phox v. Boes, 702 S.W.3d 498, 504 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 645 S.W.3d 75, 83 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)). Given these deficiencies, this Court was not presented with an accurate and complete understanding of the case. This, alone, “preserves nothing for review and is a sufficient basis to dismiss [Bruce's] appeal.” Amrine, 726 S.W.3d at 808 (citation omitted).

Argument

Next, “[t]he argument section of an appellant's brief must ‘explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error. It should advise the appellate court how principles of law and the facts of the case interact.’ ” Id. at 809 (quoting Marvin v. Kensinger, 682 S.W.3d 788, 798 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)). “An appellant has an obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [they] expect[ ] to prevail, and, if no authority is available to cite, [they] should explain the reason for the absence of citations.” Chastain, 728 S.W.3d at 525 (quoting Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kan. City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007)). “Mere conclusions and the failure to develop an argument with support from legal authority preserves nothing for review.” Amrine, 726 S.W.3d at 809 (quoting Acton, 611 S.W.3d at 902).

Here, Bruce has failed to cite any relevant legal authority in the argument section of her brief. Bruce directs us to one case in support of her claim in Point I, but we are unable to locate that case with either the citation or caption provided. Similarly, in Point II, Bruce directs us to two cases to support her claim that the trial court misapplied the law in ignoring the equitable considerations of each claimant's circumstances in dividing the interpleader proceeds. However, again, we are unable to locate either case with the citations provided or their respective captions. Thus, Bruce's argument fails to develop the assertions that the trial court either abused its discretion or misapplied the law. “A point is considered abandoned when [an] appellant fails to include relevant authorities or explain the lack thereof.” Phox, 702 S.W.3d at 504 (citing Auman v. Richard, 672 S.W.3d 277, 283 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)).

Bruce also violates Rule 84.04(e) by failing to describe whether and how the errors she asserts were preserved for appellate review. See Rule 84.04(e) (“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.”). “This statement is ‘essential to this Court's review of the case.’ ” Marvin, 682 S.W.3d at 799 (quoting Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)). “Standing alone, [Bruce's] violations of Rule 84.04(e) are sufficient to support dismissal of her appeal.” Amrine, 726 S.W.3d at 810. Again, we note that Bruce “was made aware of the deficiencies in the argument section of her brief but did nothing to correct them.” Id.

Although Bruce appeals pro se, she “is held to the same standard as attorneys and ․ is subject to the requirements of Rule 84.04.” Reeves v. Sobczak, 728 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (quoting J.R. v. P.S., 702 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024)). “This is not from a lack of sympathy, but rather is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties.” Whitehead, 728 S.W.3d at 876 (quoting S.R.W., 715 S.W.3d at 228).

To the extent we are able, this Court will sometimes review non-compliant briefs ex gratia. Here, however, Bruce's briefing deficiencies create significant gaps in our ability to understand the events that took place before the trial court. These gaps leave little room for this Court to engage in any meaningful legal analysis. See Acol v. Travers Autoplex & RV, Inc., 637 S.W.3d 415, 421 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (“While this Court hesitates to dispose of appeals for Rule 84 violations and sometimes elects to review unpreserved claims ex gratia, we cannot overlook the deficiencies in briefing and the record.”). Given Bruce's failure to substantially comply with Rules 84.04 and 81.12, we must dismiss her appeal.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Bruce's appeal is dismissed.⁴

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules, Volume I – State, 2025 unless otherwise noted.

3.   This, of course, magnifies the lack of a transcript issue, discussed above.

4.   A motion to strike Bruce's amended appellant's brief and dismiss Bruce's appeal was previously filed by Respondent Doss. That motion was taken with the case. Because we have dismissed the appeal, Respondent Doss's pending motion is moot.

W. Douglas Thomson, Judge

All concur.