Case ID: sw2d_793/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leo CALLIER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Scott CALLIER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 57001.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    June 26, 1990.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 7, 1990.
    James M. Martin, Kurt David Schultz, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.
    Alan C. Kohn, John A. Klobasa, Andrew M. Bums, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment for plaintiff on his petition for dissolution of defendant Missouri corporation. We dismiss.

Defendants’ sole point on appeal follows:

The trial court erred in granting [plaintiff’s] motion to dismiss [defendants’] counter claim, in striking portions of [defendants’] pleadings and in granting summary judgment on behalf of [plaintiff].

The point fails to state wherein and why the court’s rulings are erroneous, a fatal violation of Rule 84.04(d). See, e.g., Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 684-87 (Mo. banc 1978). Defendants have also failed to set out a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument in their brief, a violation of Rule 84.04(c). See, Porter’s Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App.1985). It is appropriate for this Court to refuse to review an appeal based on a defective brief. See, McKee v. Wilmarth, 771 S.W.2d 955, 956-957 (Mo.App.1989).

Defendants’ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.