CARL E. SMITH and MARGARITA SMITH v. GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, GREGORY HERKERT, and THE STOLAR PARTERSHIP, LLP

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J.,

concurring.

I concur in the principal opinion, but write separately in order to express my frustration with Appellants’ lack of compliance with the briefing requirements in Rule 84.04, 1 and particularly with the lack of compliance with Rule 84.04(d), which sets forth the briefing requirements for points relied on. As this writer struggled to understand the points presented, it was necessary to utilize basic English principles that most learn in grammar school. Using those principles, Appellants’ Point I was broken down to its most basic form. This was the result achieved:

I did not have actual or apparent authority to negotiate a settlement of the claim on behalf my clients because I did not have the authority in that my clients did not authorize me to negotiate the settlement and my clients did not agree to the “purported” settlement.

Further comment as to the absurdity of Appellants’ position is unnecessary. I would dismiss the entire appeal for lack of compliance with Rule 84.04(d) and failure of Appellants to comply with it in any of their points.

. All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2013).