TOWER LOAN OF MISSOURI LLC v. SESSION (2026)

Tower Loan of Missouri, LLC brought a declaratory judgment action against Michael Session (“Session”) in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri (“trial court”). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Tower Loan of Missouri, LLC (“Tower”). Session appeals that judgment and raises nine points on appeal. The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 to such a degree that this Court cannot consider the claims raised without abandoning our role as a neutral and improperly serving as Session's advocate.

Statement of Facts

This case arises from a long and tortured history of litigation between the parties. In 2015, Tower filed a lawsuit against Session to collect under a promissory note in case number 15AC-AC01128, and Session filed a counterclaim. That litigation was stayed pending arbitration. Ultimately, that matter was dismissed on January 31, 2023, and Session was ordered to pay Tower the sum of $5,000 as a sanction for his refusal to cooperate in the arbitration process. Significant correspondence between the parties subsequently occurred. Session alleged that the parties had entered into a “default settlement agreement” that included Tower's agreement to pay Session over $2,000,000 in cash and treasury bonds and the State of Missouri's agreement to pay him $250,000,000 in treasury bonds. In 2024, Tower filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that no valid settlement agreement had been entered into between the parties. Ultimately the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tower on November 6, 2025, finding that no settlement agreement existed between the parties. This appeal follows.

Analysis

Session appears pro se before this Court. Pro se appellants are not given preferential treatment and must comply with the same rules as attorneys. Maxwell v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 671 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). Rule 84.04 ¹ sets forth the requirements for briefs. The brief must contain a detailed table of contents, a jurisdictional statement, a statement of facts, points relied on, an argument section that follows the order of the points relied on, and a conclusion. Rule 84.04(a). Session's initial appellant's brief was stricken by this Court for failure to comply with Rule 84.04, but Session was granted additional time to file an amended brief in compliance with the Rule. Session filed an amended brief, which is the subject of this Court's discussion.

The statement of facts in Session's amended brief states, in its entirety:

Regarding case number 15AC-AC01125, Appellant served Respondent(s), and the State of Missouri memorandum entitled: Alternative Dispute Resolution, stating (in part), “per Court Rules 17.01(a)(b)(1), with 17.01(b)(1) described, by law as, “[Settlement Negotiations]: ․ The parties, by [oral] agreement ․ determine the rules under which the settlement negotiations will be conducted.” Respondent(s) answered (in part), “․ the August 30th ․ order ․ concludes this matter․” In reply, Appellant reiterated the December 4, 2023 memo, towards which, Respondent(s) make a 180 degree turn with unambiguous consent to written settlement negotiations, stating, “Any communication regarding settlement should be in writing.” Appellant acquiesced to determination of the rules by unanimous consent, without oral communications. Subsequently, Appellant served Respondent(s), and the State of Missouri (attached) Memorandum entitled: Settlement Negotiations: Opening Financial Demand. Appellant's January 24, 2024 ․ Opening Financial Demand: Section: Opening Averments for Financial Demand reiterates the fact of the State of Missouri as a party to settlement negotiations per Appellant's March 6, 2023 Amended Counterclaim's invocation of Court Rule 55.14 for Case 15AC-AC01128 that “set forth in” the State of Missouri as a party. Next, Appellant re-served ․ Opening Financial Demand. Appellant's second service of ․ Opening Financial Demand explicitly invoked the application of specific Court Rules stating (in part), “I am resending the message below, with attachment, as a reminder, and as an opportunity to inform you that a reasonable time frame, for your response, to my, inter alias, opening financial demand is ․ between 14 to 30 days ․ [Appellant] posits that a maximum of thirty (30) days is reasonable given its consistency, with Court Rules ․ For these settlement negotiations any silence, on your part, in effect, and, in fact concede the totals/amount of damages of the Plaintiff's paragraph, entitled: The Opening Financial Demand, because that subsection, does not contain averments. A week later, Respondent(s) made (unlawful) general denial. Within 24 hours, Appellant replied. On February 24, 2024, Appellant served Respondent(s) notice of default. Regarding the execution of the settlement agreement, Appellant has treated the Respondent(s), and the State of Missouri separately writing to Respondent(s) on March 20, 2024, “For your information, I await, in the name, and on behalf of the State of Missouri a lawful appearance by the Office of Attorney General: Missouri per RSMo (․) Chapter 27. Section 27.060 and Court Rules 55.03(b)(1-3).” NOTE: Appellant served the State of Missouri notice of default by USPS on February 14, 2024.

(Ellipses, brackets, and parentheses in original) (Citations to the legal file omitted).

The statement of facts must be fair, concise, and unargumentative. Rule 84.04(c). Session's statement of facts is not. Session's statement of facts is primarily a recital of the procedural history and does not provide an understanding of the case as required by Rule 84.04. State Dept. of Soc. Services, Fam. Support Div. v. Shipley, 517 S.W.3d 37, 38 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (“An appellant's failure to provide an adequate statement of facts is a sufficient basis to dismiss an appeal.”).

The points relied on must identify the challenged trial court ruling, state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, and explain why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Rule 84.04(d). “Abstract statements of law, standing alone, do not comply with this rule.” Rule 84.04(d)(4). Session's amended brief raises nine separate points on appeal. Those points, set forth verbatim, are:

1. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim (emphasis in bold) that, “Missouri law does not allow for the existence of a Default Settlement Agreement’ at all ․” in that Respondent(s)’ claim is categorically false given the fact that nowhere in Missouri law is a settlement agreement by default prohibited.

2. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim that (as source is cited by Respondent) “[Section] 400.2-206 R.S.Mo” (L.F.: Vol 1, pg. 22), “Missouri law does not allow for the existence of a “Default Settlement Agreement ․ certainly not as a result of a party rejecting a settlement demand,” in that, RSMo Section 400.2-206.1 allows for exceptions based on unambiguous language and circumstance.

3. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim that, “the undisputed facts evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant have no settlement agreement between them as a matter of law,” in that Appellant disputes the Respondent(s)’ general denial, on the basis that December 4, 2024 memorandum is a more essential material fact, and, as matter of law, in circuit court, and, now, on appeal the, Appellant's 1.24.2024 Memorandum: Opening Financial Demands as a contract or writing constituting a contract is undecided. Moreover, Appellant can more authoritatively claim “the undisputed facts evidence” that cases like the Appellant and Respondent(s)’ are settled out of court, according to law, as a matter of settled law.

4. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s) claim that, “All parties to this action agree as to what happened. Defendant made a settlement demand, and Plaintiff rejected the same, all via email,” in that Respondent's claim of “what happened” is a willful misrepresentation of “what happened” as a matter of law, and, as a matter of fact, by omission(s).

5. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim that, “Missouri law does not support the facts that a party must respond to each averment in a settlement demand,” in that Respondent(s), a priori, consented to settlement negotiations per Court Rules, pursuant Appellant's 12.04.2023 memorandum.

6. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim that, “[Respondent] is not required to respond to a settlement demand at all․” in that Respondent(s), concede that, a priori, Parties were under circuit court jurisdiction, and thus Court Rules.

7. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent's claim that, “․ [APPELLANT] DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACTS IN THE SUMF,” in that Appellant's (9.15.2025) response, to Respondent(s)’ (7.17.2025) statement of ․ material facts, by definition of what constitutes a material fact within the context of summary judgment is a coherent chronology that exceeds a “․ plausible contradictory account of essential facts,” that itemizes genuine disputes as to material facts that Respondent(s) would have the burden of persuasion at trial.

8. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent's claim that, “Appellant makes reference to an “underlying case” and “underlying Petition.” The concepts have no relevancy to the case at bar as no case underlies this Declaratory Judgment action,” in that “this Declaratory Judgment action” is supplemental per Court Rule 55.33(d) because “this Declaratory Judgment action” is confirmation of Appellant's Motion for Change of Judge-Brehe-Krueger, for cause by its nullification of the 1.31 and August 30th 2023 Orders of Brehe-Krueger for which Appellant's reference to the “underlaying case” is reference to the attachment of the certified docket sheet of case 15AC-AC01128 to this case, and the Respondent's Declaratory Judgment action.

9. The Court erred in granting summary judgment because the order to grant summary judgment was based on Respondent(s)’ claim that, “the only disagreement between the parties is the legal effect of counsel's responding to Defendant's settlement demand by simply stating that it is denied,” in that, Appellant claims that a settlement agreement has been achieved according to law based on the Respondent's unambiguous consent, a priori, that both Parties were under both circuit court jurisdiction, and court rules thereby rendering, “the legal effect” of Respondent's general denial as just another unlawful act to nullify Missouri law. Furthermore, there is the genuine dispute of a material fact being Appellant's governing 12.04.2023 memorandum (process) versus Respondent's (unlawful) general denial of the 1.24.2024 ․ Opening Financial Demand (product); a fortiori given the legal circumstances that Parties were ordered to arbitration.

(Emphasis in original). Session's points on appeal do not comply with Rule 84.04. It is clear that he is appealing the grant of summary judgment. It is not clear, however, what the legal reasons are for his claim of reversible error and why those reasons support reversal under the facts of the case. A deficient point on appeal requires this Court to examine the briefs and the record to ascertain the claimed error. City of Harrisonville v. Missouri Dept. of Nat. Resources, 681 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Mo. banc 2023). Requiring this Court to do so would constitute a waste of judicial resources and risk the appellant's argument being misunderstood. Id. Significantly, it also creates a situation where this Court is no longer a neutral arbiter and is, instead, acting an advocate for the appellant, which this Court is prohibited from doing. Id. A point on appeal that fails to notify opposing counsel and this Court of the issues raised on appeal and the legal reason for the claimed error, preserves nothing for appellate review. Id.; Shipley, 517 S.W.3d at 39 (“Shipley's point relied on is unintelligible. His point is such that we would be left to guess what his point was. It would require us to search the record, attempting to find support for the perceived point.”).

The argument section must follow the order of the point relied on and is limited to the errors identified in the point relied on. Rule 84.04(e). The argument section of each point relied on must identify if and how the error was preserved and the applicable standard of review. Id. Factual assertions in the argument must cite to the record on appeal. Id. The argument section of an appellant's brief must provide analytical support for the appellant's claim of reversible error. Reeves v. Sobczak, 728 S.W.3d 467, 474 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). The argument section should explain to the appellate court how the principles of law and facts of the case interact such that the claim of reversible error under the facts of this particular case is supported by the law. Id.

Session has a section in his amended brief titled “I. Appellant's Argument.” He states that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment “by simply basing its decision on the grounds specified in Respondent's summary judgment motion, and memorandum in support.” Session states:

The Circuit Court ruling stands erroneous, given both Parties’ a priori consent to Circuit Court jurisdiction, and application of superseding Court Rules as a function of an interlocutory order (amended) to arbitrate. Therefore, as a function of Respondent's unambiguous language to consent to settlement negotiations, within the context of the legal circumstance to arbitrate, by court order, under superseding Court Rules, and Appellant's invocation of specific Court Rules according to common sense and logic, Appellant's claim of the achievement of a settlement agreement, by default, is according to law, and as a matter of settled law, upon the authority of the Missouri Constitution Article V, Section 5 – by definition.

(Citations to Rules and the legal file omitted). Session sets out a preservation statement and the applicable standard of review. That is the sum total of Session's argument section.

Following that, Session has a section of his amended brief titled “II. Appellant's Arguments Against Motion for Summary Judgment and Suggestions in Support.” In that section, he restates the nine points on appeal listed earlier in his amended brief. Session numbered the points on appeal 1 through 9 initially in his amended brief. In this section, he refers to them as A through I. After each point, Session adds only one additional paragraph. These paragraphs are similar in substance and form to the excerpts of the amended brief set out above.

Session's argument on appeal is confusing to the point of almost being undecipherable. An argument section that fails to explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error preserves nothing for our review. Puetz v. Rice, 675 S.W.3d 652, 656 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (“The Puetzes’ argument merely consists of a list of bare conclusions, without an indicium of support in the record or a developed legal analysis. There is nothing preserved for this court to review.”); Reeves, 728 S.W.3d at 474 (“It is not this Court's role to parse together an argument in order to interpret the thrust of Appellants’ contentions.”) (internal quotation omitted); Faatz v. Ashcroft, 685 S.W.3d 388, 401 (Mo. banc 2024) (“Appellants raise other arguments in the body of their argument not addressed in the point relied on; therefore, those issues are not preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Devalkenaere, 684 S.W.3d 1, 24 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (“Devalkenaere's arguments following this point are quite confusing․. As Devalkenaere fails to preserve his arguments with proper briefing, his point on appeal is subject to dismissal.”). Based upon the amended brief he filed, this Court can only guess at what Session is arguing on appeal. His points, which are not developed in the argument section, are abandoned. Shipley, 517 S.W.3d at 39-40 (“Shipley's argument section is grievously insufficient and completely incoherent. ․ [H]e still fails to explain the statute's relevance and how it applies to the facts. ․ [H]e again fails to explain the relevance of those cases and their application to the facts.”).

Session's conclusion section states in relevant part:

The Rule of law can be divided into three areas. 1. The Idea. 2. The Commitment and 3. Deeds. The idea is that no one is above the law, all people and institutions including the government itself, are subject to and accountable under the law, which is fairly applied and enforced. Commitment is the consciousness that binds the mind and person to the language and text of our governing constitution. Deeds are how the public know the Rule of Law is actual.

This conclusion section further illustrates the lack of clarity in Session's arguments.

Session's amended brief does not adequately establish trial court error. He fails to comply with Rule 84.04, and his claims are so deficient that it is not possible to discern his claims of error on appeal. Session's arguments in his amended brief are confusing and, at times, unintelligible. The requirements of Rule 84.04 are mandatory. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022). This Court will not consider a brief that is so deficient that it fails to inform the opposing parties and this Court of the issues raised on appeal. Id. Dismissal is especially appropriate when this Court cannot competently rule on an appeal without reconstructing the facts and refining and supplementing the points and legal argument on appeal. Shipley, 517 S.W.3d at 38. This Court cannot become Session's advocate by providing facts and arguments he did not set out in his amended brief.² Id.

Conclusion

Rule 84.13(a) provides, “Apart from questions of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter, allegations of error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal[.]” Session's amended brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04's briefing requirements. Accordingly, Session's appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All citations to rules refer to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2026) unless otherwise stated.

2.   To the limited extent we are even able to decipher Session's attempt at a legal argument, his arguments are not legally valid or supported by fact or law.

Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge

All concur