The primary purpose of the statement of facts is "to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case. . . ." Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984 (Mo. 1952) (applying predecessor Rule 1.08); Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967) (applying predecessor Rule 83.05); Porter's Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App. 1985). Accurate recital of the facts is equally important in the argument portion of the brief.
" Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984[3] (Mo. 1952) (applying predecessor Rule 1.08). See also Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967) (applying predecessor Rule 83.05); State ex rel. Missouri Hwy. and Transp. Comm'n v. Pipkin, 818 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Mo.App. 1991). The father presents a statement of facts that portrays himself as virtually without fault while painting the mother as nearly unfit to be a custodian for her child.
" Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984[3] (Mo. 1952) (applying predecessor Rule 1.08). See also Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967) (applying predecessor Rule 83.05), and Porter's Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App. 1985). An accurate and fair recital of the facts is equally important in the argument portion of the brief, and that importance is underscored where, as here, we have disregarded a failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c) and have turned to the argument to obtain an understanding of the facts of the case.
Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984 (Mo. 1952). See Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967); Porter's Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App. 1985). Even though our courts have been hesitant to dismiss an appeal based on an inadequate statement of facts, violation of Rule 84.04(c) is grounds for such action.
Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984 (Mo. 1952). See Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967); Porter's Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App. 1985). Even though our courts have been hesitant to dismiss an appeal based on an inadequate statement of facts, violation of Rule 84.04(c) is grounds for such action.
. . ." Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984 (Mo. 1952) (applying predecessor Rule 1.08); Pioneer Finance Company v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Mo.App. 1967) (applying predecessor Rule 83.05); Porter's Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App. 1985). The plaintiffs' brief does not comply with Rule 84.04(c) and does not satisfy the primary purpose of the statement of facts.
The transcript of the testimony in this case consists of 458 pages. Respondents should not have to furnish this Court with a statement of facts so that appellant's appeal may be heard. It is appropriate for this Court to dismiss this appeal for failing to include a fair and concise statement of facts. Pioneer Finance Company v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.App. 1967). Rule 84.04(d) requires that the Points Relied On shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities thereunder. It is not sufficient to identify the action or ruling of the trial court of which appellant complains.
Walker v. Thompson, 338 S.W.2d 114, 117(8) (Mo. 1960); Jacobs v. Stone, 299 S.W.2d 438, 440(1) (Mo. 1957); Overall v. State, 540 S.W.2d 637, 638(2) (Mo.App. 1976); Hughes v. Wilson, 485 S.W.2d 620, 621(1) (Mo.App. 1972); DeCharia v. Fuhrmeister, 440 S.W.2d 182, 183(1) (Mo.App. 1969).Page v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 245 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. 1952); Graff v. Montileone, 523 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App. 1975); Glick v. Harris, 518 S.W.2d 227 (Mo.App. 1974); Power v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, 516 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.App. 1974); Pioneer Finance Co. v. Washington, 419 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.App. 1967); Gorman v. Kauffman, 188 S.W.2d 70, 71(1, 2) (Mo.App. 1945); Beck v. Security Ben. Ass'n., 129 S.W.2d 1073, 1074(1) (Mo.App. 1939); Le Clair v. Le Clair, 77 S.W.2d 862, 863-64(1, 2) (Mo.App. 1934). Almost seven decades ago, our Supreme Court per Judge Henry Lamm, an eminent and renowned master of both the law and the English language, sagely declared in Sullivan v. Holbrook, 211 Mo. 99, 109 S.W. 668, 670 (1908), that: