Case summaries for March 13-19, 2026

Appellate | Civil | Commercial | Contracts | Criminal | Employment | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Real estate

Appellate

Dismissal necessary on appellant’s deficient briefing 
Appellate briefing requirements preserved judicial impartiality. The appellants’ briefs had to include specified components with specified content. Statements of facts had to include references to the record. Point Relied On had to set forth the standard of review, follow the prescribed template, and include a list of authorities. Arguments had to show how the appellant preserved the matter. The appendix had to include, but was limited to, specified documents. After notice of those deficiencies, an opportunity to correct the deficiencies, and an extension of time to make those corrections, the appellant failed to correct all those deficiencies in an amended brief. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the action. 
(Overview summary)
Ruqaiyah I. Hunter, Appellant, vs. Transimpex Translators Interpreters Editors Consultants INC., Employer, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88174

Civil

Standing required causation 
To bring any action in circuit court, a party had to have standing, which was a legally protected interest harmed — or at least imminently threatened — by the wrong alleged. The wrong alleged was unwanted texts barred by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act but received because of the defendant’s operation of an internal do-not-call list. But the defendant’s operation of that list could not have caused the plaintiff any harm because the plaintiff never asked to be on that list. 
(Overview summary)
Dennis Thompson, Appellant, v. Genesco, Inc., Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113775

Commercial

Fraudulent transfers discussed 
The appellant’s motion to amend judgment resulted in the timely issuance of an amended judgment that nullified the initial judgment. A premature notice of appeal was deemed filed when the amended judgment became final. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as to the original judgment and reviewed the amended judgment. Any contest as to evidence resulted in deference to the circuit court’s findings of fact. In challenging a finding as against the weight of the evidence, any departure from the prescribed analysis rendered the appellant’s arguments useless. Circuit courts could conclude that a transfer in fraud of creditors occurred on a finding that a party either intended to defraud creditors or received property in exchange for less than reasonably equivalent value. The circuit court found both and the appellant buyer challenged only one, leaving an unchallenged basis to affirm the judgment. Fair market value was sufficient to show reasonably equivalent value and the value of encumbrances was not. The circuit court entered judgment for the seller’s creditor and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
FREEDOM BANK OF SOUTHERN MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JACKIE ROSS, Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER R. ROSS and SECURITY BANK OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38963 and SD38975

Contracts

Spousal consent did not reach property held in tenancy by the entirety 
Judgments on the pleadings certified for appeal with no just reason for delay, became final 30 days after entry the same as other judgments. Because a judgment on the pleadings issued as a matter of law, appellate review was de novo. All property held in tenancy by the entirety was owned by each spouse indivisibly, so “[n]either spouse, acting alone, can convey the other spouse’s interest,” and was subject to encumbrance only on the consent of both spouses. The defendant surviving spouse did not sign, and was not named in, any document as a borrower of guarantor. A “Spousal Consent” showed only that the defendant surviving spouse had knowledge of a loan that the deceased spouse had guaranteed and did not make the surviving spouse a guarantor of that loan. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendant surviving spouse and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
SHIFT CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDLEY PLASTICS, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38802

Breach of good faith found 
The parties’ contract provided that the seller would deliver to buyer a certain amount of soybeans at certain times for a certain price, with scheduled increases in price according to market fluctuations. The purpose of those provisions was to protect both parties from price fluctuations. The contract also provided that the seller’s inability to comply was not a breach of contract if the seller gave a required notice. But all contracts included an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that required best efforts at compliance and barred opportunistic dealings. Compliance and breach of those provisions was a matter of both determinations of contract provisions’ meanings and witnesses’ credibility in circuit court. On appeal, the former was subject to de novo review and the latter was due deference. Price fluctuation was, therefore, not an excuse for the seller to charge more; especially when the seller did not give the required notice, alternative sources were available, and the buyer was under duress in having run out of soybeans. The circuit court concluded that the seller had failed to use best efforts at compliance, engaged in opportunistic dealings, and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The contract also provided an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party so the Court of Appeals remanded the action for the circuit court to make that award. 
(Overview summary)
Majestic Milling Company, LLC, Respondent, vs. River Valley AG Exchange, LLC, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87895

Guaranty enforced 
An indispensable party’s absence was not a defect in subject matter jurisdiction, so failure to preserve that matter in circuit court barred it on appeal. Also, a party to a contract, related — but not subject — to the action in circuit court was not indispensable. Summary judgment was due the movant respondent when the movant established, beyond genuine dispute, facts that supported all the elements of the movant’s claim. The movant’s claim was enforcement of the appellant guarantor’s guaranty. The guaranty and the underlying loan were separate contracts; so a loan provision, protecting the borrower from collection until other sources of collection satisfied a portion of the loan, did not protect the guarantor. 
(Overview summary)
Edward Jones Trust Company and Anna C. Gross, as Co-Trustees of the Lawrence R. Gross and Anna C. Gross Joint Revocable Trust U/A/D December 31, 2019, and as Co-Trustees of the Anna C. Gross Survivor's Trust Dated June 3, 2021, Respondents, vs. Michael E. Wilcox, et al., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87875

Criminal

Third party searches discussed
On a motion to suppress evidence, the State had the burden of proving that the State obtained the evidence lawfully. Circuit court rulings on motions to suppress were subject to interlocutory appellate review. The standard for reversal was clear error. No warrant was necessary for the State to examine what a third party disclosed to State agents; beyond that limit, a State agent’s further examination constituted a search, so a warrant was necessary. A third party showed certain content of the defendant’s cell phone to a law enforcement officer and the officer’s search of the cell phone beyond that content without a warrant was unlawful. The State raised no exception to the warrant requirement in circuit court and so failed to preserve the good faith exception on appeal. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Robert L. Roth, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88224

Employment

Attorney fees on appeal awarded 
The Human Rights Act allowed an award of attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiffs and the respondent plaintiff prevailed over the defendant appellants. The appellants filed their notice of appeal three and a half months after the judgment because final, and made no timely filing that appellate courts treat as a motion to file late, so the Missouri Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over that judgment. The appellants filed their notice of appeal before the circuit court ruled on the respondent’s motion for attorney fees, which constituted a separate judgment in a separate action, so the notice of appeal was not untimely as to that ruling. Market rates did not restrict the hourly rate, while the attorneys’ qualifications and risks taken could raise that amount. Those circumstances also supported the use of a 2x multiplier. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exclude hours. Partial success — two out of three claims — led to a substantial judgment and so did not have to reduce the award. “A party cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent overcoming its vigorous defense.” The plaintiff also demonstrated reasonable litigation expenses on appeal so the Court of Appeals awarded that amount. 
(Overview summary)
Scott Caldwell, Respondent, v. UniFirst Corporation, and Michael D. Seever, II, Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113618

Personal injury

Workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for mesothelioma 
“To preserve a jury-tried issue for appellate review, a party must include the issue in both a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence, if the defendant puts on evidence, and in a motion for” judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A motion for new trial could not substitute for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for workplace-related illnesses. Enhanced coverage in workers’ compensation insurance policies was an element of the employers’ exclusive remedy defense, and the employer entered such evidence into the record. The elements of that defense did not include paying the premiums, having employees in Missouri, or having an office in Missouri. Whether coverage was effective was a fact question to which a lay witness could testify from experience; the use of experience did not make coverage a matter for expert testimony. No approved instruction was available and the circuit court’s instruction tracked the exclusivity statute, so submitting that instruction was not error. The circuit court entered judgment for the employer and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Roslyn T. Barnes, Appellant, vs. Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company, et al., Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87843

Post-conviction

No re-litigation of issues decided on appeal 
The movants could not re-litigate in a motion an issue decided on appeal. On appeal, the movant argued that the circuit court erred in denying a continuance because trial counsel did not communicate with the movant but the record did not support that argument. In the motion, the movant charged trial counsel with ineffective assistance for failure to communicate. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
RODNEY BAKER, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38962

Real estate

Open and notorious possession shown 
The elements of a claim for adverse possession included open and notorious possession of the disputed land, meaning possession that reasonable inquiry discloses. That element had support in evidence of the plaintiffs’ daily use and improvements audible and visible from the defendants’ residence. Because the plaintiffs had possession of the disputed land, the plaintiffs were not liable for trespass. A point relied on that conflated theories for reversal and offered no supporting authority preserved nothing for review. 
(Overview summary)
Denise D. Bourbon, Lee Dearden, and Mary K. Dearden, Appellants, v. Colby A. Benson, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113648