SMITH v. KILLIAN (2026)

La'Tanya Smith appeals from the circuit court's judgment in favor of Mona Warren on Smith's petition for determination of heirship. Smith contends the court erred in finding her petition was an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce decree of Smith and Warren's parents. For reasons explained herein, we grant Warren's motion to dismiss the appeal.

Factual and Procedural History

William Smith died in 2022. In February 2023, Warren filed an application for letters of administration listing herself and Smith as William's children with William's former wife, Pearl Smith.¹ Smith filed a competing application for letters of administration listing herself as William's only child. In August 2023, Smith filed a petition to determine Warren's heirship in the Probate Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court. Warren filed an answer, in which she asserted several affirmative defenses and asked the court either to dismiss the petition or enter a judgment in her favor.

In September 2024, Warren filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Smith's petition to determine Warren's heirship constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the parentage determination in William and Pearl's 1972 divorce decree. In response, Smith insisted there was evidence William was not Warren's biological father, and she asked the court to compel Warren to take a DNA test.

After Warren's summary judgment motion was fully briefed, the court held a hearing on the motion before entering judgment in Warren's favor. In the judgment, the court stated it was granting Warren's summary judgment motion on the basis that Smith's petition for determination of Warren's heirship was a collateral attack on William and Pearl's divorce decree. Smith appeals.

Nature of Judgment

The court stated in the judgment that it was granting Warren's summary judgment motion. However, the court also stated that it heard both oral argument and evidence in the hearing on the summary judgment motion. In her respondent's brief, Warren notes that, during the hearing, the Custodian of Records of the Jackson County Circuit Court appeared with the original records of William and Pearl's 1972 divorce case, testified, and was cross-examined. Additionally, Warren recounts that she and Smith testified and were cross-examined, and other documents were offered and admitted into evidence.

In the judgment, the court relied on facts that were not part of the parties’ statements of uncontroverted material facts and, therefore, were not part of the summary judgment record. See Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo. banc 2020). Because the court's judgment was based on evidence presented in the evidentiary hearing, this appeal is from a judgment in a court-tried case, not a summary judgment.

Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Warren has filed a motion to dismiss Smith's appeal, which we have taken with the case. She asserts the appeal should be dismissed because Smith's brief substantially violates Rule 84.04 and Smith failed to file a complete record on appeal.

We agree with Warren that Smith's amended brief is deficient in numerous respects.² Her statement of facts does not provide a “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination,” in violation of Rule 84.04(c). Smith's point relied on ³ does not explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, legal reasons support her claim of reversible error, in violation of Rule 84.04(d). Her argument fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e)’s requirements that it substantially follow the order of her point relied on, explain how the error alleged in her point was preserved, and develop her claim of error “by showing the interaction between relevant principles of law and the facts of the particular case.” Walker v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 592 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Mo. App. 2020) (citation omitted). “Mere conclusions and the failure to develop an argument with support from legal authority preserve nothing for review.” Id. at 388-89 (citation omitted). The “cumulative effect of these substantial deficiencies in [Smith's] brief is to prevent this [c]ourt from accurately ascertaining the nature of [Smith's] arguments, and the support therefor, without resorting to speculation or acting as an advocate for [Smith].” Kyle Estate v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 515 S.W.3d 248, 254 (Mo. App. 2017). “In such a situation, these deficiencies amount to a failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, and dismissal of the appeal is appropriate.” Id.

Additionally, Smith failed to file a complete record on appeal. Rule 81.12(a) required Smith to present “all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented.” The judgment indicates the court relied on evidence and arguments presented in the evidentiary hearing to decide the case; therefore, the record on appeal should include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. Rule 81.12(c)(1) required Smith to order the transcript within ten days after she filed her notice of appeal, but she did not. Likewise, Rule 81.16(a) required Smith to deposit any evidentiary hearing exhibits necessary to the determination of her point relied on, but she did not. Because Smith failed to order the transcript and failed to deposit any exhibits, we have nothing to review. Alhalabi v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 662 S.W.3d 180, 192 (Mo. App. 2023).

In light of the substantial deficiencies in Smith's brief and her failure to file a complete record on appeal, we cannot review her appeal on its merits. Warren's motion to dismiss Smith's appeal is granted.

Conclusion

Appeal dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To avoid confusion, we refer to William and Pearl Smith by their first names. No familiarity or disrespect is intended.

2.   This court struck Smith's initial brief for several reasons. While she corrected some of the Rule 84.04 violations listed in the order striking her initial brief, she did not correct all of them, and her amended brief contains other Rule 84.04 violations.

3.   Although Smith asserts two points relied on, her second point is simply a restatement of her first point. The argument under her second point consists only of a reproduction of the standard of review paragraph from her first point, with no further argument.

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE

All Concur.