Rhodes’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 and preserves nothing for our review and is inadequate to invoke our jurisdiction. See Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., 153 S.W.3d 866, 866 (Mo.App.2004). We should not be expected to decide this case based on inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and rummage around the record in a quest to cure the deficiencies. Davis, 93 S.W.3d at 743. We are not required to review an appeal on the merits in the face of glaring violations of Rule 84.04 concerning the requirements of an appellate brief in a civil case. Coleman v. Gilyard, 969 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Mo.App.1998). It is not proper for an appellate court to speculate as to the claim of error being raised by an appellant and the supporting legal justification and circumstances. Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Mo.App.2004). We are not permitted to speculate on an appellant’s arguments because to do so would place this Court in the role of an advocate for the appellant. Id. The appeal is dismissed.