Second, Husband argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in its division of marital property and allocation of marital debt. We find no error and affirm. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 1 . We remind both parties that their briefs must comply with Rule 84.04. Pro se appel lants are still bound by the same procedural rules as a party represented by counsel and are not entitled to any indulgences that a represented party would not be. State v. Ellis, 949 S.W.2d 279 (Mo.App. S.D.1997).
holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel recognizing that although pro se litigant is generally held to same standards as party represented by attorney a court may consider pro se status when deciding whether partys conduct was result of conscious indifference because this determination turns on his state of mind holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond