Missouri Court of Appeals Dismisses Appeal for Failure to Recite the Facts

It seems that virtually every week of the year, the Missouri Courts of Appeals toss out one or more appeals because the appellant has failed to follow the express, stringent requirements for appellate briefing, as set forth in Rule 84.04. Martin Leigh, PC v. LoanCare, LLC, from the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District, is a recent example in this long line of cases. The underlying case was an interpleader action to determine the distribution of proceeds from a foreclosure sale on a home. LoanCare, LLC, a junior lienholder whose lien was wiped out by the foreclosure sale, filed claims for wrongful foreclosure and unjust enrichment, among others, against the parties involved in the foreclosure and sought a declaratory judgment stating that the foreclosure sale was void. The parties involved included various lienholders, the borrowers who defaulted on the promissory note, the successor trustee who conducted the foreclosure sale, and the individuals who purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.

LoanCare filed a motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment and wrongful foreclosure claims, asserting that the undisputed facts showed that the successor trustee lacked the authority to conduct the foreclosure sale and failed to provide proper notice of the sale to the borrowers who defaulted on the promissory note. The other parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on LoanCare’s claims. The trial court denied LoanCare’s motion for summary judgment and granted the other parties’ cross-motions.

LoanCare appealed the trial court’s judgment, claiming that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in the respondents’ favor and against LoanCare and asserting five points on appeal. In its brief, LoanCare included a statement of facts that relied solely on accompanying exhibits, including various deeds and other documents relating to the successor trustee and the foreclosure sale. However, LoanCare did not recount the material facts set forth in its statement of uncontroverted material facts in support of its motion for summary judgment that was before the trial court, nor did it refer to the other parties’ responses to its statement of facts at any point in its brief.

The appellate court refused to consider the merits of LoanCare’s arguments on appeal, stating that because LoanCare failed to identify the uncontroverted material facts as established by the motion for summary judgment and the responses thereto, “LoanCare’s brief effectively contain[ed] no facts.” The appellate court noted that, while its review of a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment is de novo and no deference is given to the ruling of the trial court, this standard of review “does not grant an appellant a license to craft arguments free from the constraints of Rule 74.04.” The court pointed out that, in reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment, an appellate court must follow the requirements of Rule 74.04 governing summary judgment in the same manner as the trial court is required to. In other words, the appellate court does not consider the entire trial court record but must look only to the facts established in the summary judgment record.

The appellate court then turned to a discussion of Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Rule 84.04(c), which states the requirement that a brief include a statement of the facts relevant to the issues on appeal, imposes on an appellant "the duty to define the scope of the controversy by stating the relevant facts fairly and concisely." J.D. v. Sanders, 688 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth. v. Rail Switching Servs., Inc., 523 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017)). In the appeal of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the relevant facts are those set forth in the moving party’s statement of facts and the responses. Id. (quoting Lisek v. Taber, 674 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023)). Therefore, when a party appeals a grant of summary judgment, Rule 84.04 requires that their brief include both the moving party’s statement of uncontroverted material facts and the other party’s responses to those facts. Otherwise, the appellate court has no basis for determining whether the stated facts are genuinely material and uncontroverted.

Because LoanCare’s statement of facts did not refer to either its own statement of uncontroverted material facts or the responses to those facts, it did not set forth the relevant facts for the appellate court to consider as required by Rule 84.04. In dismissing LoanCare’s appeal for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04, the appellate court noted that “[t]o excuse this defect would require us to act as an advocate on LoanCare's behalf and scour the record to discover the facts that might support LoanCare's claims.”