Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

09/15/93 WILSON L. BLACKWELDER AND EDNA BLACKWELDER

September 15, 1993

WILSON L. BLACKWELDER AND EDNA BLACKWELDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL T. BLISSETT AND LEISA M. BLISSETT, RESPONDENTS.



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY . Honorable David C. Mann, Associate Circuit Judge

Crow, Flanigan, Garrison

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Crow

Appellants, Wilson L. Blackwelder and Edna Blackwelder, leased premises to Respondents, Michael T. Blissett and Leisa M. Blissett, for a term beginning January 18, 1989, and ending January 19, 1992. Respondents operated a day care center on the premises. When the term expired, Respondents surrendered possession to Appellants.

A few months later, Appellants sued Respondents for $9,000, averring Respondents failed to return the premises to Appellants in as good condition as when Respondents received possession, and Respondents committed waste on the premises. A non-jury trial resulted in a judgment for Respondents. This appeal followed.

Appellants' two points relied on read:

I.

The court erred as a matter of law in granting judgment for the Respondents because the undisputed testimony was that Respondents failed to restore the leased premises to the condition in which they were prior to the time the Respondents entered into possession, as required by the lease agreement.

II.

The trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of Respondent in that said judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence.

Rule 84.04(d) *fn1 reads:

The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous . . . .

The purpose of the rule and the necessity of obeying it are set forth in the venerable case of Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 684-88 (Mo. banc 1978).

Appellants' point II presents the unadorned assertion that the judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence. The point supplies no clue as to wherein and why the evidence was insufficient. A point relied on stating there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment, without setting forth wherein and why that is so, presents nothing for appellate review. Phillips v. Phillips, 819 S.W.2d 413, 416[2] (Mo.App. S.D. 1991); Best v. Culhane, 677 S.W.2d 390, 394[4] (Mo.App. E.D. 1984); Tripp v. Harryman, 613 S.W.2d 943, 950[12] (Mo.App. S.D. 1981).

Furthermore, the burden was on Appellants to prove their claim against Respondents. Chandler v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 418 S.W.2d 130, 135[4] (Mo. banc 1967); Show-Me Restoration Services v. Harlan, 778 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Mo.App. E.D. 1989). As explained in Phillips v. Phillips, 443 S.W.2d 144, 145-46 (Mo. banc 1969), because a defendant does not have the burden of proof, he need not present evidence to prevail. Therefore, a contention that a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.