Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC (May 5, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Missouri (MO)
Court
Missouri Supreme Court
Decided
May 5, 2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1216594Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASEDFOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAWREPORTS. IT MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MOTIONFOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER. IT MAY BEMODIFIED, SUPERSEDED OR WITHDRAWN.Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.Jill VAN DEEL, Appellant,v.A-PLUS CONTRACTING, LLC,andByron Cornell Jeffries, Respondents.ED114002|Filed: May 5, 2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County TheHonorable W. Christopher McDonough, JudgeAttorneys and Law FirmsFOR APPELLANT Andrew G. Toennies, 4185 Crescent Dr.Ste A, St. Louis, Mo 63129FOR RESPONDENT Bradley Hansmann (Christine K.Lesicko), 600 Kellwood Parkway Suite 120, St. Louis, Mo63017Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Presiding JudgeIntroduction*1 Jill Van Deel (Appellant) appeals from the circuit court'sgrant of summary judgment in favor of A-Plus Contracting,LLC (A-Plus) and Byron Jeffries (Jeffries) (collectivelyRespondents). Appellant sued Respondents for negligencealleging that they caused her injury when she rode hermotorcycle through an oil spill coming from Respondents’leaking dump truck. On appeal, Appellant asserts two points:(1) that the circuit court erred by granting Respondents’summary judgment motion “based on the sudden emergencydoctrine,” wherein genuine issues of material fact exist, and(2) the circuit court erred by denying her leave to amendand file a third-amended petition. Because Appellant failsto recite the facts as required by Rule 84.04(c)1 and Rule74.04(c) (2008) we cannot engage in fair and meaningfulreview; thus, we dismiss Point One. Additionally, Appellant'sPoint Two fails to substantially comply with Rule 84.04(d)or (e), preserving nothing for appellate review and requiresdismissal. We dismiss Point Two.Factual and Procedural BackgroundIn March 2019, Jeffries, an employee of A-Plus, drove acompany-owned Sterling dump truck hauling rock to a jobsite in Earth City, Missouri. Although A-Plus owned thetruck, A-Plus did not perform its own maintenance on thevehicle, and instead sent it to AA Roadrunner, an automotiverepair company in St. Louis, Missouri, for all maintenanceand repairs. While driving north on Missouri Highway 94,the truck suddenly shut off without warning. Jeffries coastedthe vehicle onto the shoulder of the exit ramp to MissouriHighway 370, exited, put warning triangles behind the truck,and called for assistance. Despite the truck showing no signsof mechanical issues or oil leakage prior to shutting down,Jeffries then observed an oil spot on the road. While ahighway patrol trooper was cleaning up the oil spill, Appellantdrove over the spill and crashed.In October 2019, Appellant filed suit against Respondents,and subsequently filed a First Amended Petition in January2020 and a Second Amended Petition in April 2024.In her Second Amended Petition, Appellant alleged thatRespondents were negligent by allowing oil to spill on tothe roadway; failing to keep a proper lookout; failing tostop, swerve, slacken, or sound a warning; and driving at anexcessive speed.In May 2025, Respondents filed their Joint Motion forSummary Judgment and Statement of UncontrovertedMaterial Facts (Defendants’ SUMF). In June 2025, Appellanttimely filed a response opposing the motion, including aresponse to Defendants’ SUMF. In her response, Appellantcited the original paragraph numbers, but did not set forth
Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2any of the statements of fact established in Defendants’SUMF. Instead, Appellant either admitted the allegationor stated “Plaintiff does not have sufficient information toadmit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph [ ]of Defendants’ Uncontroverted Material Facts in Supportof their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and thereforedenies.” Appellant did not reference any discovery, exhibit,or affidavit to support her denials.*2 In July 2025, the circuit court heard arguments onthe summary judgment motion and took the motion undersubmission. After the hearing, while the motion was pending,Appellant filed a “Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Motion forSummary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion to AmendPetition.” The Sur-Reply sought leave to file a third amendedpetition, but no such petition was attached to the Sur Replyor to the record on appeal. On August 29, 2025, the circuitcourt issued its judgment granting summary judgment infavor of Respondents. The circuit court found that Appellant'sResponse to Respondents’ Statement of UncontrovertedMaterial Facts did not comply with Rule 74.04(c)(2) andthat all facts were therefore admitted. Under the summaryjudgment record, the circuit court found no facts showing thatRespondents breached any duty owed to Appellant, and foundthey were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter oflaw. This appeal follows.Fundamentals of Appellate ReviewThis Court reviews a circuit court's grant of summaryjudgment de novo. Martin Leigh, PC, v. Williamson, 699S.W.3d 538, 541 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (citing Green v.Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 2020)). Factscome into a summary judgment record only via the Rule74.04(c) numbered-paragraphs and response framework, andwe review a grant of summary judgment based on thatrecord alone, with affidavits, exhibits, and discovery playing asupporting role, only as cited to support numbered paragraphsand responses. See Green, 606 S.W.3d at 116–17 (internalquotation omitted). “Summary judgment is only proper ifthe moving party establishes that there is no genuine issueas to the material facts and that the movant is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law.” Z.S. by & through P.S. v.Rockwood Sch. Dist., 674 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Mo. App. E.D.2023) (internal quotation omitted). While our review of agrant of summary judgment is de novo, that standard of reviewdoes not grant Appellant permission to craft arguments freefrom the constraints of Rule 74.04. Great Southern Bank v.Blue Chalk Constr., LLC, 497 S.W.3d 825, 836 (Mo. App.S.D. 2016).Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory. Murphree v.Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623–24 (Mo. App.E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). The purpose of “Rule84.04 is [ ] to give notice to the other party of the precisematters at issue and to ensure that appellate courts do notbecome advocates for the appellant by speculating facts andarguments that have not been made.” Murphy v. Steiner, 658S.W.3d 588, 591 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (internal citationomitted).AnalysisWe dismiss Point One because Appellant's Brief fails torecite the facts as required by Rule 74.04(c) and Rule84.04(c)“[O]ur de novo decision on appeal must be in accordancewith all the requirements of Rule 74.04 and, therefore, mustbe made in the very same manner the [circuit] court [ ] [ ]applied that rule in the first instance.” Blue Chalk, 497 S.W.3dat 836 (emphasis omitted). A non-movant's “response shall setforth each statement of fact in its original paragraph numberand immediately thereunder admit or deny each of movant'sfactual statements.” Rule 74.04(c)(2). Here, Appellant failedto do as required. Furthermore, “the response shall supporteach denial with specific references to the discovery, exhibitsor affidavits that demonstrate specific facts showing thatthere is a genuine issue for trial.” Appellant denied severalallegations, but provided no supporting references. Failure todo so, “renders the truth of the fact admitted.” Montgomeryv. Coreslab Structures (Missouri), Inc., 697 S.W.3d 766, 772(Mo. App. W.D. 2024); Rule 74.04(c)(2).Moreover, Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory.Murphree, 636 S.W.3d at 623. Rule 84.04(c) requires aconcise statement of the facts relevant to the questionspresented for determination and that such statements havespecific page references to the relevant portion of the recordon appeal. A brief appealing the grant of summary judgment“should [ ] set forth the material facts established by Rule74.04(c)(1) and (2) together with the pages in the legalfile where such facts were established.” Wichita Falls Prod.Credit Ass'n v. Dismang, 78 S.W.3d 812, 815 (Mo. App.S.D. 2002) (internal quotation omitted). The facts relevantto appealing a grant of summary judgment are those in themovant's statement of uncontroverted material facts and in the
Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3non-movant's properly pleaded responses thereto. J.D. by andthrough Storment v. Sanders, 688 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Mo. App.S.D. 2024) (internal quotation omitted). From this recordalone, we determine whether the established uncontrovertedfacts entitle a movant to judgment as a matter of law. Green,606 S.W.3d at 117–18 (internal quotation omitted).*3 Here, Appellant's brief fails to set out the uncontrovertedmaterial facts that Respondents’ established in their Statementof Uncontroverted Material Facts, which were deemedadmitted because Appellant's responses did not complywith Rule 74.04(c)(2). Appellant also fails to cite factscontroverted by the summary judgment record, if any exist.Instead, Appellant relies on allegations from her pleadings,which also fail to comply with the requirements of Rule84.04(c), as they do not state with particularity the pagesin the legal file where those averments may be found.2Such citations are “essential for the effective functioning ofappellate courts because courts cannot spend time searchingthe record to determine if factual assertions in the brief aresupported by the record.” Parkside Financial Bank & Trustv. Allen, 688 S.W.3d 83, 87 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (internalquotation omitted).Appellant's briefing deficiencies materially impede ourability to fairly and accurately review the point on the merits.See Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 508 (Mo. banc2022). However, even if we had been able to do so, Appellantwould not have prevailed, as under this record she fails todemonstrate the existence of disputed material facts, or thatRespondents are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Point One is dismissed.We dismiss Point Two because Appellant's Brief does notsubstantially comply with Rule 84.04“A point relied on which does not state ‘wherein and why’the [circuit] court ... [ ] erred does not comply with Rule84.04(d) and preserves nothing for appellate review.” Lexowv. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022) (internalquotation omitted). Because Appellant's Point Two fails tosubstantially comply with Rule 84.04(d) or (e) it preservesnothing for review and requires dismissal. See id. at 505–10. Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires that each point presented byAppellant shall: “(A) Identify the trial court ruling or actionthat the appellant challenges; (B) State concisely the legalreasons 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.”3Appellant's second point on appeal merely states that “[t]he[circuit] court erred in not allowing plaintiff's motion toamend petition.” This statement lacks the legal reasons andsupport for Appellant's claim. This places the Court in aposition where it must interpret Appellant's reasoning, riskingeither misinterpreting Appellant or advocating for her. SeeMurphy, 658 S.W.3d at 591–92 (internal citation omitted).This point also fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e), asAppellant provides no preservation statement or standardof review within the argument section of the brief.4 SeeR.M. v. King, 671 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023)(finding claims of error with faulty preservation statementsand standards of review violated the requirements of Rule84.04(e), thus requiring dismissal). Moreover, the amendedpetition that Appellant argues the trial court erroneouslyexcluded was not made part of our record, so we are unable toreview it. For the foregoing reasons, Point Two is dismissed.Conclusion*4 The appeal is dismissed.Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge and James M. Dowd, Judge,concur.All Citations--- S.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 1216594Footnotes1All Rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018) unless otherwise specified.
Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.42Appellant's brief contains other deficiencies impeding appellate review, including multiple inaccurate ornonexistent caselaw citations. It also mistakenly denominates this Court as the “U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Missouri,” rather than our proper name “The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District.”3Rule 84.04(d)(1) also provides a format for points on appeal, stating that, “The point shall be in substantiallythe following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legalreasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case,support the claim of reversible error].’ ”4Appellant's argument section for her second point on appeal includes only one caselaw citation, “B.M. [v.]J.S., 775 S.W. 2d 917 (Mo. App. W.P. 1989),” which this Court was unable to verify.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access