Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent,
STEPHEN J. CHRISTENSEN, et al., Appellants.
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable Richard
T. Quigless, J.
J. Christensen and Caroline L. Christensen
("Appellants") appeal from the circuit court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank National
Association ("Respondent") on its claim for
unlawful detainer, under Section 543.030. Appellants raise
one point on appeal, arguing "[t]he process of requiring
a separate action for claims of wrongdoing in a real estate
setting is unconstitutional." We dismiss Appellants'
appeal for failure to comply with the mandatory briefing
requirements of Rule 84.04.
and Procedural Background
2007, Appellants took out a loan on their home and executed a
deed of trust encumbering the property. The deed of trust was
subsequently assigned to Respondent. After Appellants
defaulted on their home loan, Respondent foreclosed on the
property pursuant to the terms of the deed of trust.
Respondent appointed a Successor Trustee to handle the
6, 2016, the Successor Trustee sent a letter by certified
mail to Appellants notifying them that they were in default
on the loan and demanding payment for the outstanding balance
of the loan. The letter notified Appellants that Respondent
had elected to foreclose on the property and a foreclosure
sale would be held on July 28, 2016. Notice of the
foreclosure sale was also published in the St. Louis County
Legal Ledger daily from July 8, 2016 through July 28, 2016.
On July 28, 2016, the foreclosure sale was held and the
property was sold to Respondent as the highest bidder. On
October 21, 2016, the Successor Trustee sent Appellants a
letter notifying Appellants the property was sold at the
foreclosure sale and demanding Appellants immediately vacate
the property. Appellants refused to deliver possession of the
property to Respondent upon demand, and remained in
possession of the property from the date of the foreclosure
sale until the filing of this case.
October 25, 2016, Respondent filed an unlawful detainer claim
against Appellants, seeking immediate possession of the
property and damages for double the fair market monthly
rental value of the property since the date of the
foreclosure sale. Respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing uncontested evidence supported every element
of its claim.
hearing oral arguments, the circuit court granted the motion,
entered judgment in favor of Respondent, and awarded
Respondent immediate possession of the property, and $1, 000
per month in damages for lost rents and profits. Appellants
filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial
court. This appeal follows.
sole point on appeal states: "The process of requiring a
separate action for claims of wrongdoing in a real estate
setting is unconstitutional." The argument section of
Appellants' brief appears to argue that the unlawful
detainer statute, Section 543.030, is unconstitutional and
violates his due process rights because "[t]he inability
of a party to properly defend [by challenging the underlying
foreclosure] and litigate all actions [against the
foreclosing bank] in an unlawful detainer situation creates
an untenable and unconstitutional situation."
Failure to Comply with the Briefing Requirements of Rule
first address the deficiencies contained within
Appellants' brief. The facts section, point relied on,
and argument section of Appellants' brief all fail to
comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule
statement of facts is one paragraph long and does not mention
a single fact pertaining to the underlying case. The only
facts mentioned are the dates for certain procedural actions
taken in the circuit court. This fails to comply with Rule
84.04(c)'s requirement that Appellants' brief contain
a "fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to
the questions presented for determination without
arguments." Rule 84.04(c). Appellants do not even
mention a single fact relating to the foreclosure sale or
Appellants' possession of the property. An
appellant's failure to provide a fair and concise
statement of facts is a sufficient basis to dismiss an
appeal. Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kan. City, Inc.,
211 S.W.3d 145, 147 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007).
Appellants' point relied on states, in its entirety:
"The process of requiring a separate action for claims
of wrongdoing in a real estate setting is
unconstitutional." This fails to comply with Rule
84.04(d)(1)'s requirement that each point relied on
"(A) identify the trial court ruling or action
that appellant 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
claim of reversible error." Rule 84.04(d)(1) (emphasis
added). "The requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory
and must be strictly applied." Brown, 211
S.W.3d at 147. Appellants' point fails to identify any
trial court ruling, fails to mention the law that is
purportedly unconstitutional, and fails to explain why that
unnamed law is unconstitutional in the ...