Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division
IN RE THE MATTER OF STATE OF MISSOURI, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES, FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION, Respondent,
MICHAEL SHIPLEY, Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The
Honorable Patrick William Campbell, Judge.
Before: James Edward Welsh, P.J., Anthony Rex Gabbert, and
Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.
Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge.
Shipley appeals the circuit court's order, requiring him
to pay attorney fees in the amount of $2,250 for his eight
frivolous claims seeking the enforcement of federal court
orders from the Eighth Circuit as foreign judgments. Because
of the grievous shortcomings of Shipley's brief, which
prevent us from determining what his complaint is, we dismiss
appears pro se in this appeal. "We hold pro
se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys,
and we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding
compliance with those rules." Kim v. Kim, 431
S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo. App. 2014). Failure to comply with the
rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for the
dismissal of an appeal. Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas
City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Mo. App. 2007).
"This is especially true, when, as is the situation in
this case, 'we cannot competently rule on the merits of
[Shipley's] argument without first reconstructing the
facts . . . and then refining and supplementing his points
and legal argument.'" Kim, 431 S.W.3d at
525 (citations omitted). Complying with briefing
requirements, as set out by Rule 84.04, is mandatory so that
appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on
facts and arguments that have not been made. Bridges v.
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App.
brief repeatedly violates Rule 84.04's requirements
concerning the contents of briefs. "The failure to
substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for
review." Anderson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.,
173 S.W.3d 356, 357 (Mo. App. 2005). "Failure to comply
with Rule 84.04 merits dismissal." Id.
statement of facts does not comply with Rule 84.04(c).
84.04(c) mandates "a fair and concise statement of the
facts relevant to the questions presented for determination
without argument." Shipley's brief does not provide
a fair and concise statement of the facts. Shipley's
statement of facts merely restates portions of the procedural
history. "'A statement of facts that consists of
nothing more than an abbreviated procedural history fails to
provide an understanding of the case and is
deficient.'" Parnes v. Centertainment,
Inc., 14 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. 2000) (citations
omitted). An appellant's failure to provide an adequate
statement of facts is a sufficient basis to dismiss an
appeal. Brown, 211 S.W.3d at 147.
Shipley's point relied on violates Rule 84.04(d)(1)'s
requirement that the point "identify the trial court
ruling or action that the appellant challenges; . . . state
concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of
reversible error; and . . . explain in summary fashion why,
in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the
claim of reversible error." His point relied on states:
The Family Support Division erred in their conclusions of law
and determination that Mr. Shipley violated Rule 55.03(c) by
presenting frivolous claims with no factual or legal basis
with the intent to harass FSD, increase the cost of
litigation and abuse the judicial system, and pursuant to
55.03. Mr. Shipley is order to pay FSD's attorney's
fees in the amount of $2,250.00 and shall not file any
claims, motions, request, pleading or other papers.
The Pre-trial Order, is evidentiary support from Division 43
Commissioner Susan E. Long dated October 4, 2013. Court
Findings: "the court further finds that the Order(s)
resulting from Mr. Shipley's complaint(s) filed in the
United States District Court, Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and Supreme Court of the United States may be
relevant and Mr. Shipley is not prevented from seeking to
admit them at trial in this matter" This reversible
claim of error is supported by the August 27, 2014 Notice of
Filing of Foreign Judgment and; at any time after
registration the Petitioner shall be entitled to have summon
issued and serviced upon the judgment debtor, the January 21,
2016 Summon Circuit-Issued ID: 16-SMCM-8, denial of factual
contention are warranted on the evidence.
Mr. Shipley has hereby establish a defense and legal
contention that are warranted by existing law, that defense
is under Missouri Revised Statutes Uniform Enforcement of a
Foreign Judgment, and by 'due process of law, Mr.
Shipley's Summon ID: 16-SMCM-8 is warranted for
'Final Judgment and Execution' on the merits of
evidence in this review, and is entitled to 'Full faith
and credit' of the registered foreign judgments;
1). Federal Court Order 8th Circuit for Default
2) Federal Court Order 8th Circuit for Cease and
Becoming 'final judgments' of the State of Missouri.
Which shall include as part of the judgment interest payable
on the foreign judgment under the law of the state in which
it was rendered, and cost of obtaining the authenticated copy
of the original judgment and the court of obtaining the
authenticated copy of the original judgment and the court
shall include as its ...