misapplication-of-law challenge in Missouri

2023Thus, “a single point that alleges the trial court erred under more than one of the Murphy v. Carron standards raises a multifarious point that violates Rule 84.04(d)(1) and preserves nothing for review.” Ebert v. Ebert, 627 S.W.3d 571 , 580 (Mo. App. 2021) (emphasis in original); see also Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014) (a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge are distinct claims that “must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant’s brief to be preserved for appellate review”)

2021See Langston v. Langston, 615 S.W.3d 109 , 116 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (noting our preference to decide appeals on the merits and reviewing multifarious points on appeal ex gratia). 5 This point, too, is multifarious. “[A] substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge” are “distinct claims,” which “must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant’s brief to be preserved for appellate review.” Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014).

2016“Improper points relied on, including those that are multifarious, preserve nothing for appellate review." Martin, 147 S.W.3d at 863 .

2016"Improper points relied on, including those that are multifarious, preserve nothing for appellate review.” Martin v. Reed, 147 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004) (quoting Stelts v. Stelts, 126 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004)). 7 .

2025Services, Children's Div. of State, 477 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (noting that a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge are distinct claims that must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant's brief to be preserved for appellate review).

2021As with Chapline’s first point, we will, nonetheless, review this point ex gratia. 6 However, even if the February 24, 2021 renewal had not occurred, we would still review the merits of Chapline’s appeal pursuant to section 455.007, which provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though t

2021As with Chapline’s first point, we will, nonetheless, review this point ex gratia. 6 However, even if the February 24, 2021 renewal had not occurred, we would still review the merits of Chapline’s appeal pursuant to section 455.007, which provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though t

2021As with Chapline’s first point, we will, nonetheless, review this point ex gratia. 6 However, even if the February 24, 2021 renewal had not occurred, we would still review the merits of Chapline’s appeal pursuant to section 455.007, which provides that, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine shall apply to an appeal of a full order of protection which has expired.” See C.D.R. v. Wideman, 520 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (evaluating the substantive issues in the appeal pursuant to section 455.007, even though t

2017We recognize that a trial court “has inherent power and authority to order a survey in order to' establish a proper legal' description in a case where land boundaries are in issue.” McNear v. Rhoades, 992 S.W.2d 877, 882 (Mo. App. 1999).

2016Cf. Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n. 11 (Mo.banc 2014) .("a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge_are distinct claims” that must be raised "in separate points relied on ... to be preserved for appel-lale review”); Henson v. Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) ("[a] submission of error without reasoned argument does not allow the reviewing court to make a decision”); Maxon v. Leggett & Platt, 9 S.W.3d 725 , 729 (Mo.App.S.D.2000) (overruled on different.grounds, by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection,

2016We may review a deficient point ex gratia if the supporting arguments are understandable, Nickel v. Stephens Coll., 480 S.W.3d 390, 396 (Mo.App.W.D.2016), but Bank would not prevail even if we chose to do so here.

2016"Improper points relied on, including those that are multifarious, preserve nothing for appellate review.” Martin v. Reed, 147 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004) (quoting Stelts v. Stelts, 126 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004)). 7 .

2016Cf. Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n. 11 (Mo.banc 2014) .("a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge_are distinct claims” that must be raised "in separate points relied on ... to be preserved for appel-lale review”); Henson v. Henson, 195 S.W.3d 479, 483 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) ("[a] submission of error without reasoned argument does not allow the reviewing court to make a decision”); Maxon v. Leggett & Platt, 9 S.W.3d 725 , 729 (Mo.App.S.D.2000) (overruled on different.grounds, by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection,