LIBERTY LANDING COOPERATIVE v. WARREN (2026)

Jeremy Warren (Warren) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, (trial court) entered in favor of Liberty Landing Cooperative, a Missouri Cooperative Association (the Association). Due to Warren's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, his brief preserves nothing for our review and we dismiss the appeal.¹

Factual and Procedural Background

In October 2025, the Association filed a petition for unlawful detainer in the trial court.² The Association alleged, inter alia, that Warren owned a private mobile home situated on a lot owned by the Association, that he leased said lot and agreed to be bound by the Association's governing documents,³ and that there were multiple violations of the governing documents resulting in the termination of his tenancy. The Association alleged that it duly notified Warren and made a written demand to return possession of the property to the Association, but Warren failed to cure his defaults under the governing documents and failed to return possession of the property.

A bench trial was held. The trial court entered its judgment in January 2026 which found that Warren's security cameras were directly pointed at neighbors’ doors and/or windows in violation of the Association's community rules. The trial court found that the Association properly terminated Warren's lease agreement for cause and that there was no evidence establishing Warren had not received proper notice. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the Association possession of the property and ordered Warren to pay any back rent and lease charges accrued before the execution of the judgment as well as any that accrued until possession was relinquished to the Association.

Warren appeals pro se.

Discussion

This Court issued an order striking Warren's initial brief for the following reasons:

(1) the table of cases lack[ed] references to the pages of the brief where they [were] cited as required by Rule 84.01(a)(1);

(2) the Statement of Facts lack[ed] specific page references to the legal file or the transcript as required by Rule 84.04(c); and

(3) the argument section lack[ed] specific page references to the legal file or the transcript as required by Rule 84.04(e).

Warren's amended brief still fails to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's briefing requirements for the reasons discussed infra. We dismiss the appeal due to the extensive Rule 84.04 briefing violations.

Rule 84.04 Violations

“Rule 84.04 provides the mandatory requirements for briefs filed in all appellate courts.” Phox v. Boes, 702 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024). While we prefer to reach the merits of a case, we will not consider a brief that is so deficient it fails to give notice to the court and parties as to the issues presented on appeal. Id. The failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements preserves nothing for our review and provides grounds for dismissal. Id. Additionally, judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties do not allow us to grant pro se litigants preferential treatment regarding their compliance with Rule 84.04's procedural rules. R.M. v. King, 671 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). Therefore, although Warren appears pro se, he is held to the same standard as attorneys and subject to the same Rule 84.04 mandatory appellate briefing requirements. See id.

Statement of Facts

Rule 84.04(c) requires that “[a]ll statements of facts shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” Sporadic page references are insufficient because every statement of fact requires a specific page reference, and a lack of page references requires us to improperly speculate on facts. Hunter v. Transimpex Translators Interpreters Eds. Consultants Inc., 731 S.W.3d 607, 612 (Mo. App. W.D. 2026).

Warren's statement of facts fails to include a citation to the record for all statements of fact. For example, Warren states: “On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement,” without referencing any portion of the record on appeal to support his contention. Warren's failure to cite any summary judgment motion is especially problematic because his sole point on appeal argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Nothing in the record on appeal, however, shows that any party filed a motion for summary judgment. Warren also cites to exhibits that were admitted at trial but were not included in the record on appeal. A Rule 84.04(c) violation, standing alone, constitutes grounds for dismissal of Warren's appeal. R.M., 671 S.W.3d at 398.

Points Relied On

Each point relied on shall:

(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.

The 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)(1). Additionally, Rule 84.04(d) requires separate points to challenge separate rulings or actions. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505-06 (Mo. banc 2022). Consolidating “multiple, independent claims” into a single point is not permitted. Id. at 506 (citation omitted). This is because separate and distinct inquiries require different legal analyses. D.S.G. v. Gue, 735 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Mo. App. W.D. 2026). Multifarious points relied on violate Rule 84.04(d) and preserve nothing for our review. Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 506.

Warren's sole point on appeal reads as follows:

The circuit court erred in granting summary judg[ ]ment to [the Association] because the circuit court's orders of summary judg[ ]ment were based on its ruling that [Warren] was legally bound by the member occupancy agreement and this ruling was erroneous in that (1) [Warren] never signed the contract/agreement (2) [the Association] is disregarding ex post facto laws in order to enforce [the Association's] community rules [and] (3) the [causal]connection is within the common knowledge or experience of laymen.

By consolidating three distinct claims of error into one single point, Warren's point on appeal is multifarious and preserves nothing for review. See Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 506. Aside from that, each error is based on an alleged summary judgment the trial court granted when none exists in the record on appeal.

Argument

Rule 84.04(e) requires that each claim of error contain a “concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it was preserved; and the applicable standard of review.” The standard of review is an essential part of an appellate argument because it outlines this Court's role in disposing of the matter before us. Rice v. Armstrong Teasdale, 739 S.W.3d 699, 709 (Mo. App. E.D. 2026). Additionally, all factual assertions in the argument section shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal. Rule 84.04(e). The argument section also “must explain why, in the context of the case, the law supports the claim of reversible error” and it should advise this Court “how principles of law and the facts of the case interact.” Hunter, 731 S.W.3d at 614 (citation omitted).

First, Warren's argument fails to articulate the appropriate standard of review. Warren asserts that the standard of review for this case is de novo, because he maintains that he is appealing the grant of summary judgment. While it is true that we review the grant of summary judgment de novo,⁴ court-tried cases, such as this, are governed by Murphy v. Carron. Gonzales-Flaharty v. Flaharty, 727 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). 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. Id. at 161. Because Warren fails to identify the applicable Murphy v. Carron ground, Rule 84.04 directs us to dismiss the point. See Interest of S.M.W., 658 S.W.3d 202, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). We also note that Warren's factual assertions in his argument section lack specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal.

Even if we were to set those deficiencies aside and attempt to review Warren's non-compliant point ex gratia, we would not be able to do so because his argument is not readily understandable. See D.S.G., 735 S.W.3d at 601. Addressing the merits of this appeal would require us to assume the role of Warren's “advocate by searching the record for the relevant facts of the case, speculating about the possible claims of error, and crafting a legal argument on his behalf.” Porter v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 590 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). “We will not serve as an advocate for any party to an appeal at the expense of judicial impartiality and fairness.” ACWSTL, LLC v. Gladney, 673 S.W.3d 550, 553 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). Due to Warren's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, his brief preserves nothing for our review and the appeal must be dismissed. See id.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2026).

2.   The petition was filed against Warren and additional defendants John Doe/Jane Roe. The record reflects that all parties were served, no individual named party was ever substituted for John Doe/Jane Roe, and only Warren appeared for the bench trial. Warren individually appeals the judgment, pro se.

3.   These governing documents included By-Laws, Community Rules, Member Occupancy Agreement, Membership Agreement, and Promise to Pay.

4.   Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 2020).

Janet Sutton, Judge

Alok Ahuja, Presiding Judge, and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge concur