TRAVIS GIBSON, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD 35815 ) Filed: March 29, 2019 CATHERINE RICE, ) ) Defendant-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STODDARD COUNTY Honorable Robin E. Fulton, Special Judge Before Bates, J., Scott, J. and Sheffield, J.

AFFIRMED PER CURIAM. Travis Gibson (Plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Catherine Rice (Defendant), w ho represented Plaintiff in a c riminal proceeding arising from an order of protection. Plaintiff brought a legal malprac tice action against Defendant, which resulted in the entry of a summary judgment in favor of D efendant. Plaintiff has chosen to represent himself in this appeal, which is his right. He is, however, required to follow the same rules of procedure as an a ttorney who represents an appellant on appeal. Kline v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc. , 998 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo. App. 1999). While this Court reco gnizes the problems faced by self-represented litigants,2 we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers. “It is not for lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, ju dicial economy and fairness to all parties.” Sutton v. Goldenberg , 862 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Mo. App. 1993); Kline , 998 S.W.2d at 141; see also Carden v. City of Rolla , 290 S.W.3d 728, 729 (Mo. App. 2009). As our Supreme Court explained in Thummel v. King , 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978): Ordinarily, an appellate court si ts as a court of review. Its function is not to hear evidence and, based thereon, to make an original determina tion. Instead, it provides an opportunity to examine asserted error i n the trial court which is of such a nature that t he complaining party is entitle d to a new trial or outright reversal or some modification of the judgment enter ed. It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for an y party to an appeal. ... When counsel fail in their duty by filing briefs wh ich are not in conformity with the applicable r ules and do not sufficiently ad vise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, the court is left with the dilemma of deciding that case (and possibly establishing preced ent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the defi ciency. Courts should not be asked or expe cted to assume such a role.

Id . at 686; see also Kline , 998 S.W.2d at 141. “An appellate court is not to become an advocate for a party to an appeal.” In re Marriage of Spears , 995 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Mo. App. 1999). Accordingly, we must hold Plaintiff to the same st andards of practice and procedure on appeal that we would expect of an attorney. Rule 84.04 lists the requirements which an appellant’s brief m ust meet. These requirements are mandatory. Coyne v. Coyne , 17 S.W.3d 904, 906 (Mo. App. 2000). 1

Plaintiff’s brief is deficien t in the following respects. 1. Table of Contents Rule 84.04(a)(1) requires an appe llant’s brief to contain “[a] detailed table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabeti cally arranged), statutes, and

1 All rule references are to M issouri Court Rules (2018).3 other authorities cited, with ref erence to the pages of the bri ef where they are cited[.]” Id

. Plaintiff’s brief contains a “Ta ble of Authorities[.]” This ta ble is deficient because the cases are not arranged alphabeti cally, and there are no referen ces to the pages of the brief on which the cases are cited. Additionally, Plaintiff’s list o mits many cases that are cited in his brief. Certain constitutional provisions are listed, ag ain without page references. Only the references to statute s and rules have the required pag e references.

2. Jurisdictional Statement Rule 84.04(a)(2) requires an appellant’s brief to contain “[a] concise statement of the grounds on which jurisdiction of the review court is invoke d[.]” Id . “The jurisdictional

statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrat e the applicability of the particular provision or provision s of article V, section 3, of the Constitution upon which jurisdiction is sought to be pred icated.” Rule 84.04(b). Plai ntiff’s “Jurisdictional Statement” is deficient because it merely specifies the county and case number of the underlying proceeding and then pre sents six paragr aphs of argum ent relating to the merits of the trial court’s ruling. 3. Statement of Facts Rule 84.04(a)(3) requires an appe llant’s brief to contain “[a] statement of facts[.]”

Id . Insofar as relevant here, “[t] the statement of facts shall b e a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the quest ions presented for determinat ion without argument. All

statements of facts shall have s pecific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits.” Rule 84 .04(c). Plaintiff’s “Statement of Facts” on pages 5-12 of his brief does not meet any of these re quirements.4 As this Court explained in Chopin v. Am. Auto. Ass’n of Missouri , 969 S.W.2d 248 (Mo. App. 1998): An appellant has the duty to define the scope of the controvers y by stating the relevant facts fairly and concisely. The purpose of the st atement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased unde rstanding of the facts of the case. A statement of facts containing prac tically no facts relating to any issue raised on a ppeal does not comply with Rul e 84.04(c).

Id . at 251 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s eight-page Statement of Facts consists of Plaintif f’s summary of what he perceived to be the relevant events, mostly in the form of his own arguments and conclusions about what happened. None are supported by specifi c page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal. Moreover, this case was decided by summary judgment in Defendant’s favor: Since the trial court adjudicated this case by summary judgment , the facts on which the trial court based it s decision were those establis hed pursuant to Rule 74.04(c)(1) & (2). ... A statement of facts that does not identify: (1) the material facts established by a party’s motion for summary judgment and the party opposing the motion for summary judgment’s respon se, or (2) the material facts, if any, pled in the motion for summary judg ment properly denied by the opposing party’s res ponse, violates Rule 84.04(c)

. Exec. Bd. of Missouri Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conference Ctr., Inc. , 430 S.W.3d 274, 284 (Mo. App. 2014). According to the trial co urt’s judgment, Plaintiff did not comply with the requireme nts of Rule 74.04(c)(2), so ea ch numbered paragraph in Defendant’s statement of undisput ed material facts was deemed a dmitted. In Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts, there is no reference at all to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or the statement of unc ontroverted material facts upon which it was based. Because Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts provides us with no basi s to discern what material5 facts were established by the trial court’s ruling, it preserve s nothing for appellate review.

Id . at 285-86.

4. Points Relied On Rule 84.04(a)(4) requires an appe llant’s brief to contain “[t] he points relied on[.]” Rule 84.04(d)(1) specifies the fo llowing format for a point rel ied on: (1) Where the appellate court re views the decision of a trial c ourt, each point shall: (A) Identify the trial court ru ling or action that the appellan t 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 cl aim of reversible error. The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The t rial 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 ].”

Id . (italics in original). This required format serves the impor tant purpose of giving the opposing party notice of the precise matters in contention and informing the court of the issues presented for review. Kyle Estate v. 21st Mortg. Corp. , 515 S.W.3d 248, 253 (Mo. App. 2017). Plaintiff’s single po int relied on states that “[t ]he trial court 16SD-CC00090 misapplied ‘official immunity’ to ‘ministerial acts’ as describ ed.” This statement is followed by two and one-half pag es of argument addressing why P laintiff contends this legal conclusion is correct. An abstract statement of law is a deficient point relied on, which preserves nothing for appellate review. See Rule 84.04(d)(4); Prather v. City of Carl Junction, MO , 345 S.W.3d 261, 265 (Mo. App. 2011). Moreover, Plaintiff’s p oint is not immediately followed by “a list of cases, not to exceed fou r, and the constitutional,6 statutory, and regulatory provi sions or other authority upon wh ich that party principally relies.” Rule 84.04(d)(5). 5. Argument Rule 84.04(a)(5) requires an appellant’s brief to contain “[a] n argument[.]” Insofar as relevant here, Rule 84.04(e) contains the fo llowing requirem ents for the argument in an appellant’s brief: The argument shall substantially follow the order of “Points Re lied On.” The point relied on shall be res tated at the beginning of the s ection of the argument discussing that point. The argument shall be limited to those errors included in the “Points Relied On.” For each claim of e rror, the argument shall also include a c oncise statement describing whet her the error was preserved for appellate revi ew; if so, how it was preserved ; and the applicable standard of review. ... All factual assertions in the argument shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the re cord on appeal, i.e., legal file, tra nscript, or exhibits.

Id . “An argument should show how the principles of law and the f acts of the case interact.”

Carroll v. AAA Bail Bonds , 6 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Mo. App. 1999). Plaintiff’s brief does not contain an argument section, nor is the point restated as r equired. There is only a section called “support” from pages 14-31. There is no descrip tion of the applicable standard of review for an appeal from a summary judgment. Ther e is no discussion of why the trial court’s judgment was erroneous, based upon the legal principles governing appellate review of a summary judgment as applied to the materi al facts established by the trial court’s ruling. There is n ot a single page reference to the record on a ppeal to support

the factual assertions in the “support” section of Plaintiff’s brief. This section also contains references to matters outside the record on appeal, which is im proper. Pattie v. French Quarter Resorts , 213 S.W.3d 237, 239 (Mo. App. 2007).7 6. Conclusion Rule 84.04(a)(6) requires an appellant’s brief to contain “[a] short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.” Id . Plaintiff’s brief contains a “Closing” section, but it does not state the precise relief he seeks from this Court on a ppeal. Some of his complaints

in this section are directed a t other unspecified summary judgm ents in federal court, which are not before this Court. Therefore, his brief does not compl y with Rule 84.04(a)(6). See Moreland v. Div. of Emp’t Sec. , 273 S.W.3d 39, 41 (Mo. App. 2008). A trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and an appellant bears the burden of proving his or her claims of error. Ray Klein, Inc. v. Kerr , 272 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Mo. App. 2008). The numerous and subs tantial violations of Rule 84 .04 in Plaintiff’s brief are so serious as to impede appellate review. Reliable Roofing, LLC v. Jones , 302 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Mo. App. 2009); see State ex rel. Greene County v. Barnett , 231 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Mo. App. 2007). An allegation of error that is not proper ly briefed cannot be considered in a civil appeal. Rule 84.13(a); Martin v. Reed , 147 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Mo. App. 2004). Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating reversible trial court error, the judgment is affirmed. See Stelling v. SJMGroup , 504 S.W.3d 248, 253 (Mo. App. 2016); In re Marriage of Chorum , 469 S.W.3d 484, 490 (Mo. App. 2015).

All concur.