Case summaries for Feb. 20-26, 2026

Civil | Criminal | DWI | Employment | Evidence | Family | Post-conviction | Real estate

Civil

Default judgment set aside 
The courts favored the setting aside of default judgments, and appellate courts were more likely to a affirm a ruling that granted a motion to set aside than a ruling that denied a motion to set aside. The circuit court could set aside default judgments on the showing of two elements: good cause and a meritorious defense. A meritorious defense meant any substantive matter. Appellant failed to challenge one of the defenses ruled meritorious, leaving that defense in support of that element. Good cause meant a mental state less than recklessness and included delays in a good faith attempt to secure counsel. The circuit court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. Whether a preliminary writ stopped the circuit court from setting aside the default judgment on its own motion also was moot. 
CITY OF OSAGE BEACH, Appellant v. DUENKE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC; TAN-TAR-A ESTATES, LLC, and TAN-TAR-A ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39033

Appeal extended time for revival of judgment 
The date on which the circuit court filed a final judgment marked the end of circuit court authority in the action, and an appeal altered that result only as set forth in the appellate court’s mandate, with the law of the case foreclosing litigation of any other matter. The same date also started the time for filing a motion for revival of judgment. That time applied differently to two defendants in the original judgment because the Missouri Court of Appeals eventually ruled differently as to the two defendants. As to the first defendant, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, so the circuit court had no authority to enter any judgment on remand as to the first defendant, and its attempt to do so was void. As to the second defendant, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, so the circuit court had authority to file a judgment on remand. Two different deadlines for revival thus applied to the two defendants: from the original judgment for the first defendant, and from the judgment on remand for the second defendant. The motion for revival of judgment was timely as to the second defendant and untimely as to the first defendant. The circuit court erred in granting the motion for revival as to first defendant, so the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded the action for an order of revival against the second defendant only. 
IN THE ESTATE OF: IRENE LAMBUR a/k/a VERNA IRENE LAMBUR, Deceased, JOYCE BAXTER, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Irene Lambur, and RUTH BECKER, ROLAND PAYNE, and JOHN PAYNE, Petitioners-Respondents v ANNA STIDHAM and MATT STIDHAM, Respondents-Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39143

Missouri law applied to Missouri assets 
Bank deposits were subject to the law of the state where they were located, regardless of the funds’ source, and the decedents’ property was subject to the law of the state where they resided. For the decedent and the decedent’s accounts, both were in Missouri. Deposits were presumed held as a tenancy by the entirety subject to rebuttal by evidence that was “clear, strong, unequivocal, and so definite and positive[.]” That described the contract for the decedent’s account, which stated that the account was held as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. The decedents’ property transferred to a joint tenancy with right of survivorship was subject to recovery in an action for accounting. 
(Overview summary)
Estate of Etsuko Toguri, by and through its trustee and executor, Kathleen Miki Toguri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti, by and through its personal representative, Anna Marie Pierotti and Anna Marie Pierotti, an individual, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113234

Criminal

Miranda rights waived 
Detectives’ statements encouraging the defendant to be honest, and the defendant’s fatigue, did not constitute coercion that negated a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights. The variance of the written sentence of 999 years from the spoken sentence of life in prison required a remand for correction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent vs. Jessie Randall Williams, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87393

Body cam recording and testimony were enough 
The elements of assault in the second degree included recklessness. The victims’ testimony alone was sufficient to show that the defendant acted purposely or knowingly, which was more than enough to find recklessness, so it was irrelevant whether body cam recordings were clear enough to support the charges. And the recordings corroborated the testimony and supported the verdict. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38782

Solicitation defined 
The elements of enticement of a child as charged included soliciting sexual contact, which included a demand, and which eventual coercion did not negate. Evidence of an uncharged prior bad act was subject to exclusion, but evidence that the defendant tickled the victim’s sister did not constitute evidence of an uncharged prior bad act, so the Missouri Court Appeals declined plain error review of that evidence’s admission. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard E. McCoy, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113082

Must seek to change venue and judge simultaneously
In any criminal action, when defendant sought a change of judge and a change of venue, defendant had to file a motion for both simultaneously within a specified time. The addition of more charges and a new case number did not re-start that time. Defendant filed a motion for change of judge too late and a judge granted it. The Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of prohibition, barring the transferee judge from doing anything other than transferring the action back to the previous judge.
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. CATHERINE HANAWAY, Relator v. THE HONORABLE JAMES R. BICKEL, ET AL., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39245

DWI

Intoxication shown, driving while suspended not shown 
To show possession, the State did not have to enter the item possessed into evidence; testimony or a video recording was sufficient. No notice or opportunity to dispose of such contraband was necessary to support a conviction for possessing an item forbidden in jail. Physical debilitation showed that the defendant was intoxicated by prescription medications and other substances. The elements of driving while suspended included driving with criminal negligence as to whether defendant’s license was suspended. To be criminally negligent was to be unaware “of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation [.]” The State did not show that the defendant was criminally negligent as to the consequences of her traffic violation record because the State did not offer any evidence of that record. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jeri Sue Lasker, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88083

Employment

Retaliation alleged without underlying discrimination 
To state a claim, the plaintiffs had to set forth more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements [;]” they had to allege facts that described a claim. The Human Rights Act created claims that included discrimination in employment based on disability, and for retaliation against complaining about such discrimination. Disability meant “substantial impairment to a major life activity” related to employment. Plaintiff described temporary “mere difficulties” in breathing and walking, and failed to allege severe and pervasive conduct by her employer, so the circuit court did not err in dismissing the discrimination claim and affirmed that ruling. The circuit court also did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying leave to amend. Retaliation was actionable even when the alleged discrimination was not. Allegations that adverse actions followed discrimination complaints raised an inference of retaliation. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the retaliation claim and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary)
Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113602

Evidence

Elements of municipal offense not inferred 
Drivers were subject to enhanced sentences for earlier intoxication-related offenses. The driver’s earlier municipal conviction was for “driving while intoxicated.” That recitation was insufficient to support an inference that the elements of the municipal offense included driving, as currently defined. “The offense might have been for physically driving or operating a vehicle while intoxicated, but it also might have been for being in physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. While the former conduct would qualify the 2002 offense [for enhanced sentencing], the latter would not[,]” so evidence of the municipal ordinance’s language or “some other evidence to show the conduct involved in the offense” was necessary. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the judgment and remanded the action for re-sentencing. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC101218

Exclusion of expert testimony reversed 
On a motion for summary judgment, supporting evidence had to be admissible at trial. To be admissible at trial, expert testimony required a foundation that included showing that the testimony was “the product of reliable principles and methods . . . and that the expert reliably applied those principles and methods to the case [,]” which required more than “the ipse dixit of the expert.” The circuit court did not err in excluding the expert testimony and entering summary judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview summary)
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC101091

Family

Grandparent relationship preserved in adoption 
In an action for adoption, circuit courts did not determine custody, they determined whether creating a parent/child relationship was in the child’s best interest. The grandparent appellant did not show that the evidence weighed against that element, in that evidence of a threat to the appellant’s relationship with the child did not outweigh the respondent’s evidence of respect for that relationship. A ruling that preserved that relationship was the relief that the appellant requested, so the appellant could not challenge that ruling on appeal. 
(Overview summary)
In re the Adoption of: K.L.C.B., N/K/A K.L.C.S.; D.B., Appellant, vs. J.A.S., Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88045

Maintenance denied 
The appellant’s points relied on had to be concise and phrased in a summary fashion, with a list of authorities, and the related argument had to link those authorities to the facts of the appellant’s case. Failure to comply with those requirements barred appellate review because appellate review would require an appellate court to build an argument for appellant, which no appellate court would do. The purpose of maintenance was to bridge the gap between a receiving spouse’s income and reasonable expenses subject to the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Awards of maintenance were discretionary while the factors determining the amount were mandatory. In determining a maintenance, circuit courts had to avoid counting the paying spouse’s resources already awarded in the property division. The circuit court did so by separating a business’s return on investment from the amounts that the business paid that spouse. But even including return on investment, the circuit court found a negative cash flow that supported a denial of maintenance. 
(Overview summary)
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble, Appellant, vs. Bradford R. Noble, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87485

No action for third-party visitation 
Visitation with, and custody of, a child were available to a person unrelated to the child by blood or marriage in a pending action for divorce, separation, or paternity, but not by independent action. The judgment awarding custody when outside a pending action in which custody was not at issue aggrieved the appellant adoptive parent, so the appellant had standing to appeal. The Supreme Court of Missouri entered judgment for the appellant. 
(Overview summary)
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101121

Post-conviction

No abandonment hearing was necessary 
The face of the pleadings showed that post-conviction counsel applied the wrong version of the rule setting the deadline for filing an amended motion, resulting in late filing without the movant’s fault, so no remand for a hearing on abandonment was necessary. On claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to call witnesses, movants had to show that “(1) trial counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; (2) the witness could be located through reasonable investigation; (3) the witness would testify; and (4) the witness’s testimony would have produced a viable defense.” On the first element, the circuit court found against the movant, and appellate courts defer to that finding, and the movant offered no evidence to support the other elements. 
(Overview summary)
Rodger Sisemore, Appellant vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87891

Not pursuing informant was a reasonable trial strategy 
Trial counsel’s choice of witnesses was virtually unchallengeable. When the movants charged that the counsel’s conduct constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, showing a reasonable strategy negated that charge. Reasonable trial strategy included choices that “avoid highlighting” “potentially unfavorable evidence.” That described trial counsel’s choice against pursuing the confidential informant who participated in one of the movant’s offenses. The movant also failed to allege how the confidential informant’s testimony would have helped. 
ALPHONSE AVILA, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38960

Folding knife constituted a deadly weapon 
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included substandard performance and resulting prejudice. On direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals found that the exclusion of evidence did not prejudice the movant. That finding negated the prejudice element of ineffective assistance. Voir dire showed that brief mentions of previous convictions did not prejudice the movant. Choosing self-defense of imperfect self-defense was a sound trial strategy that negated substandard performance. The evidence was sufficient to show that the movant’s folding pocket knife was a deadly weapon, so neither trial counsel nor appellate counsel were ineffective for arguing otherwise. The verdict director did not cross-reference the self-defense instruction, but the record negated any prejudice. The self-defense instruction was sufficient without no-retreat language because the evidence did not call for a retreat. Choosing to submit no lesser-included offense was sound trial strategy. The record showed previous convictions that supported sentencing the movant as a persistent assault offender despite legislative changes to the criminal code. Absent any prejudice, there could be no cumulative prejudice, even if the movant had preserved that matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
BRADLEY DOUGLAS COOK, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38718

Real estate

Variance from historic district standard granted 
The appellant agency’s decisions were subject to review in circuit court. The circuit court could hear additional “evidence of alleged irregularities in procedure or of unfairness by the agency [.]” Judgments were subject to appeal, but the appellate court again reviewed the agency decision with the additional evidence and not the judgment. The defendant historic district’s ordinances included construction standards and variances from those standards. The elements of a variance included that, in the absence of a variance, the owner could not put the property to a reasonable beneficial use and could not earn a reasonable return on their investment. The respondent property owner carried that burden by showing that the property was already operating at a loss, had suffered damage, and required repairs to prevent further damage. The additional evidence also supported reversal of the denial as arbitrary and capricious. 
(Overview Summary)
Elevi Holdings, LLC, Respondent, v. City of St. Louis, et al., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113528