Case summaries for Jan. 17-23, 2025

Administrative | Appellate | Civil procedure | Criminal | Employment | Employment security | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Real estate

Administrative

Levels of review discussed 
Statutes provided that a decision of the Missouri Department of Social Services Children’s Division’s Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board was subject to review in circuit court de novo. De novo review was “‘a fresh hearing on the matter and is not limited in any way by the previous decisions' of the Division or the Board.” A victim’s testimony alone was enough to support a judgment against the appellant and no corroboration was necessary, even if Missouri still applied the corroboration rule. The circuit court’s judgment was subject to review in the Missouri Court of Appeals with deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations and contrary evidence was irrelevant. And even if such evidence were relevant, the appellant’s departures from the professional standards under cut the appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Thomas Hernandez vs. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86893

Appellate

No place for evidence contrary to judgment 
Statutes constituting the Private Prompt Pay Act provided interest and attorney fees when a buyer failed to pay according to a contract, and the circuit court awarded those amounts to the seller accordingly. Whether the Uniform Commercial Code applied was not an issue of jurisdiction and mere mentions of those statutes at trial or in a proposed judgment did not preserve any error of law. “[F]actual inferences and evidence contrary to the judgment, ignoring our standard of review[,]” could not show a misapplication or misinterpretation of law and had no place in showing that a judgment lacked substantial evidence or was against the weight of the evidence. 
MIKE SEITZ, Appellant v. ADVANCED WELDING & MANUFACTURING, INC., D/B/A ADVANCED WELDING & ORNAMENTAL IRON, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38421

Civil procedure

No change of venue for plaintiff 
A rule allowed a motion for change of venue and a statute granted any motion for change of venue not ruled on within a time certain. But change of venue was only for responding parties, so the plaintiff could not seek a change of venue, and the statute could not apply. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of mandamus barring the circuit court from doing anything other than transferring the action. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, ex rel. ArchCity Defenders, Inc., Blake A. Strode, Individually, and John Waldron, Individually, Relators, vs. The Honorable Joseph P. Whyte, and the Honorable Joseph A. Rathert, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113019

Jurisdiction and authority distinguished 
A challenge to the circuit court’s jurisdiction did not preserve a challenge to the circuit court’s authority as governed by statute, and the appellant could not re-phrase its point relied on to change the former into the latter. Circuit courts had inherent expertise sufficient to determine an award of attorney fees without evidence, and appellate courts presumed their awards to be correct, subject to a showing of an abuse of discretion. An erroneous set-aside of the respondent’s judgment did not erase the accrual of post-judgment interest, which started with the initial rendition of the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
4021 Iowa, LLC, Respondent, vs. K&A Delmar Property, LLC, et al., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112681

Criminal

No expungement for sex offense 
Statutes allowed expungement of offenses generally. Specific exceptions included any offense requiring registration as a sex offender. Registration was necessary for “[a]ny person … convicted of … furnishing pornographic material to minors[,]” which was the petitioner’s offense. An exemption to the registration requirement was available, but the offense remained, and the petitioner’s exemption from registration did not entitle the petitioner to expungement. 
(Overview summary) 
J.J.J., Respondent, vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol, Criminal Records Depository, Appellant, and Circuit Court of Gasconade County, Gasconade County Prosecuting Attorney, Missouri Director of Revenue, Gasconade County Sheriff's Office, Hermann Police Department, and Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112467

Employment

Release’s reach explained 
The plaintiff employee entered into a termination agreement with the plaintiff’s employer. The agreement included a release of any claim against the employer and any member of any “related company.” Related companies included entities that contracted to do business together like an operating agreement under which one entity governed another. The defendants established beyond genuine dispute that they were members of such an entity, which showed that the release entitled them to a judgment, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. 
(Overview summary) 
Patrick Carron, Appellant, v. Mark Schabbing & Darryl Green, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112664

Employment security

Insufficient notice required new hearing 
Constitutional provisions set the judiciary as a guard against the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s abuse of adjudicatory power by providing review of the whole record, without favor to the commission’s decision, and de novo review of the commission’s conclusions of law. A rule required the commission to prepare the record on appeal. The record on appeal showed neither the certification of mailing required by commission regulation, nor any other evidence of notice of hearing to the claimant’s lawyer, as required by statute and commission regulation. Notice of hearing on one matter did not show notice of hearing on another matter, especially when the record on appeal showed no evidence of mailing any notice. “These incongruent facts ‘substantially diminish our confidence in the completeness of the record as mandated by [statute] and the accuracy of the Commission’s … mandated Rule 100.02(f) certification of completeness[.]’” The record did not support the commission’s decisions, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed them and remanded the claims for further proceedings. 
(Overview summary) 
Iria Hapsari H. Kline, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112419

Personal injury

Church immunity affirmed 
A defending party could prevail on a motion for summary judgment by establishing facts beyond genuine dispute that negated any single element of the claimant party’s theory. Such a showing supported dismissal for failure to state a claim and did not require the pleading of an affirmative defense. Constitutional provisions protected churches from excessive judicial entanglement in religious policies and doctrines, including how a reasonable church would conduct a youth ministry, because that inquiry described the relationship between the church and its congregants. “[C]hurch members give their implied consent to be subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant church. 
JANE DOE, a minor by next friend, T.N., Appellant vs. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PIERCE CITY, MISSOURI, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38331

Post-conviction

Allegations unpreserved 
Allegations not raised in the motion were waived. Motions were not subject to expansion or refinement by presentation of evidence at hearing, or on appeal, even by consent. An objection to instructions and a motion for new trial sought different relief and were subject to different standards of proof, so the motion’s charge that trial counsel failed to raise instructional error did not preserve an allegation that the trial counsel failed to object to jury instructions at trial, and the movant waived the objection by failing to raise it. An allegation that trial counsel failed to present expert evidence on the “dynamics of sexual abuse in families” and movant’s “ability for successful treatment” did not preserve an allegation that trial counsel failed to present evidence that movant had a low risk of recidivism. The motion charged that re-sentencing counsel failed to offer psychological evidence but statements by the circuit court, which conducted the underlying criminal trial and the evidentiary hearing on the motion, expressly negated any prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Melinda Tillitt vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86769

No basis for Batson claim 
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included substandard performance and resulting prejudice. Appellate counsel had no duty to raise every theory possible on appeal and never had a duty to raise a baseless claim. A Batson claim required counsel to show a race-based strike of a venire person, but the state supported its strikes with race-neutral grounds, and the movant showed no disparate treatment of similarly situated venire persons. The appellant considered a Batson claim meritless and that choice was strategically sound, negating both elements of movant’s claim. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Josiah S. Wright vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86433

Real estate

In terrorem clause applied 
The parties made a contract to purchase land with a provision to award attorney fees to the prevailing party if either party litigated over the contract. The elements of a claim for specific performance included the plaintiff’s performance of all contractual obligations that were not excused. The contract required the plaintiff buyer to obtain access to the land, to protect the defendant seller from a claim for an easement by necessity, so the buyer could not waive that duty. The plaintiff did not show performance of that duty, only an “undefined, alleged oral offer to allow access by” a third party, which was no substitute. Nor was the seller’s failure to procure a survey as required by the contract. “Instead, the parties’ joint failure to fulfill the contract’s conditions, as of the date required for their mutual performance, would discharge both parties.” Missouri did not use the “first to breach” rule. The statute of limitations provided the time to file an action in circuit court and not the time to perform under a contract. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded for a determination of attorney fees to respondent for the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Teri A. Deffenbaugh and Kelly R. Forck vs. David Kelly Burre, Trustee of the David Kelly Burre Revocable Trust 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86760