Case summaries for April 24-30, 2026

Appellate | Civil | Constitutional | Criminal | DWI | Elections | Employment security | Family | Health | Local government | Orders of protection | Post-conviction | Post-conviction relief | Probate | Real estate | Schools

Appellate

No standing to appeal
Standing to appeal a judgment required the appellant to have been a party to the action. The appellant filed the action in the capacity of trustee of a trust on behalf of the trust. The appellant appealed in the capacity of an individual beneficiary on her own behalf. Because the appellant as an individual was not a party to the action, she lacked standing to appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Alice Marie Riding as Trustee of Nation RAR Trust, et al. vs. United Consumer Credit Union, Defendant, Jason Neathery
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88396

Evidence was sufficient when no objection made
In an action for dissolution of marriage, property valuations and equalization payments were subject to review for abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court valued the parties’ marital residence on evidence of assessed value for property tax because the appellant did not object to that evidence. “[A] party cannot resurrect an admissibility objection it failed to make, by arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a decision because the unchallenged evidence should be disregarded.” The circuit court divided the property unequally as it announced, consistently with applicable statutory factors, the circuit court’s findings of fact, and the record. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In Re: The Marriage of Kristin N. DeGrace vs. Philip A. DeGrace, III
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87899

Civil

Motion to set aside default did not show timely filing 
The law also defended “the integrity of the legal process and procedural rules” even though it favored rulings on the merits over default judgments. A motion to set aside a default judgment for good cause and a meritorious defense was a separate action from the underlying action. The elements included filing the motion “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment.” One year was the latest possible for any motion, and the defendant respondent made that deadline on the last day. But that did not make the filing time reasonable. Reasonableness was a matter of fact requiring pleading and proof. The defendant respondent’s motion was unverified and did not allege any facts showing that 365 days was a reasonable time for filing. “[T]he record is thus devoid of evidence on which we can rely to affirm the judgment.” The circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the motion so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action with instructions to reinstate the default judgment. 
MAD TAX LLC, Appellant v. JAMES WINFRED ROBINSON, Trustee, and Trustees and Beneficiaries of the J. Winfred Robinson and Barbara A. Robinson Revocable Trust Dated 9/5/2013, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39093 and SD39275 Consolidated

Judgment on the pleadings reversed 
Judgment on the pleadings was due the party with the burden of proof when the face of the pleadings established the material facts beyond genuine dispute. The movant plaintiff’s claim was for enforcement of a settlement, which constituted an action for enforcement of a contract. A contract’s elements included acceptance of an offer, meaning a proposal of essential provisions and agreement without variance from those essential provisions. The provisions as alleged in the petition and the answer differed as to the release of claims, confidentiality, and non-disparagement. The differences alleged on the face of the pleadings showed that essential provisions were genuinely in dispute. On those pleadings, the circuit court erred in granting judgment for the plaintiff. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for an evidentiary hearing. 
(Overview summary)
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, v. Stephen G. Davis, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113643

Constitutional

Motion to retax was the exclusive remedy 
Circuit clerks had a ministerial duty to tax statutorily determined court costs by bill of costs, and any unlawfully taxed cost was subject to correction on a motion to retax, which was the exclusive remedy. That applied to the appellant’s constitutional arguments: the appellant had to raise them in a motion to retax. The appellant raised a constitutional challenge to statutorily determined court costs in an action for unjust enrichment. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of that claim. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment as to that ruling because the circuit court erred in reaching the merits outside of the exclusive remedy. Later recognizing the exclusive remedy, the circuit court entered judgment on the pleadings dismissing the action and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Benjamin Curtis Ramirez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al. vs. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys and Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88010 Consolidated with WD88014

Criminal

Omission from police report did not require exclusion
Pre-trial discovery required the State to disclose police reports. The State’s opening statement’s purpose was to inform the jury of the evidence that the State anticipated presenting at trial, not evidence it disclosed in pre-trial discovery. Therefore, the absence of an identification from disclosure did not bar its mention in the State’s opening statement. Out-of-court declarations admitted as and limited to context explaining subsequent police conduct, not for the truth of the matter declared, were not hearsay and were not subject to exclusion. A statement given before the reading of Miranda rights was not subject to exclusion when first muttered inaudibly, or repeated at a law enforcement officer’s request, voluntarily outside of a custodial interrogation. Inconsistencies in identifying the defendants as perpetrators were for finders of fact to weigh, and appellate courts deferred to such credibility determinations. On a charge of resisting a lawful stop, the instructions had to include the reason for the stop, and doing so did not make the reason for the stop into an element of the offense. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Lawrence Allen Cole II 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87518

Nolle prosequi ended circuit court authority 
Nolle prosequi constituted a voluntary dismissal that instantly ended the circuit court’s authority over a criminal action without regard to any pending motion. And if a nolle prosequi occurred before jeopardy attached, the dismissal was without prejudice. Pending a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial, the State filed a memorandum of nolle prosequi, after which the circuit court found a speedy trial violation and entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. That judgment was null so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment with instructions to vacate the judgment. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant v. JACOB COLE BYLER, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38929

For marijuana expungement, wrong procedure, right result
Appellate courts reviewed judgment for error but reversed only on prejudicial error, meaning error that “materially affect[ed] the merits of the action.” Constitutional provisions required circuit courts to expunge marijuana-related criminal records. The procedure depended on whether the records related to a “person currently incarcerated in a prison, jail or halfway house [.]” If so, the circuit court acted on a petition. If not, circuit courts acted sua sponte. The petitioner was not incarcerated in a prison, jail, or halfway house; the circuit court nevertheless failed to expunge the petitioner’s record; the petitioner filed a petition for expungement; and the circuit court granted that petition and expunged the record. That procedure was erroneous but also harmless. The circuit court granted the petition for expungement and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
D.S., Respondent, v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, Criminal Records Repository, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113927

DWI

Refusal of field sobriety test supported probable cause 
In an action to suspend a license to drive, on appeal from the Director of Revenue’s decision to circuit court, the director had the burden of proof. The driver’s belief that the driver had to demonstrate sobriety did not show that the circuit court shifted the burden of proof. Refusing a field sobriety test was not cause for suspension but supported probable cause to believe that the driver was intoxicated. Any challenge to a judgment as against the weight of the evidence required the appellant to follow a specified analysis. That analysis included identifying the evidence supporting a challenged finding of fact necessary to the judgment and showing how such evidence failed to support that finding. The appellant driver’s failure to follow that analysis rendered the driver’s brief useless. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Brandon Ward vs. Director of Revenue State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87917

Elections

Congressional districting referendum ballot summary further corrected
Referendums could suspend legislation pending voter approval. For all referendums, the Secretary of State had to prepare a ballot summary that was fair and sufficient and circuit courts had no authority to remove words without a finding that the words were insufficient or unfair. No such finding appeared in the judgment as to the word “existing” in the phrase “the existing . . . congressional plan” and that word was not unfair or insufficient. The referred legislation’s language showed that it “keep[s] more . . . counties intact” so that ballot summary language was not insufficient or unfair. Other language was unfair or insufficient. Whether the referred legislation would “keep more cities . . . intact” depended on official maps. That information was not in evidence, not subject to judicial notice at trial, and not subject to any finding of fact in the judgment. Whether the new districts were “more compact” “could only be supported by extrinsic information and analysis” not in the record. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and entered judgment certifying ballot summary language without “keep more cities . . . intact” and without “more compact.”
(Overview Summary)
People Not Politicians and Richard Von Glahn vs. Denny Hoskins, in his Official Capacity as the Missouri Secretary of State
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88795

Employment security

Wrong ruling appealed 
A deputy denied the claimant’s application for benefits. The deputy’s decision was subject to review before an appeals tribunal. The appeals tribunal also denied the claim. The appeals tribunal’s decision was subject to review by application timely filed with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. The commission determined that the claimant’s application was not timely filed and dismissed it. The commission’s decision was subject to review in the Missouri Court of Appeals by notice of appeal. The claimant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals but sought challenged only of the appeals tribunal decision, not the commission’s, and the appeals tribunal’s decision was not within the scope of the Court of Appeals’ review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
Bruce A. Halstead vs. Amazon.com Services, INC., Employer, and Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88267

Family

Overnights awarded but not exercised 
An award of child support was subject to modification if the obligor showed a substantial and continuing change in circumstances, which was presumed if the change resulted in a reduction of 20% or more from the presumed amount as correctly calculated. The correctly calculated presumed amount accounted for overnight visits awarded and exercised. The movant for modification did not show that the movant exercised the visits awarded, and so did not correctly calculate the presumed amount, and was not entitled to the favorable presumption. The circuit court denied the modification and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Preston Scott Buckallew, Individually and as Next Friend of B.N.B. and K.L.B., Minors vs. Shelby Hall
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88374

Future harm analysis “precisely” made 
Circuit courts could terminate parental rights on a two-step analysis. The first step was that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence showed a statutory basis for termination existed. The circuit court concluded that more than one ground existed, and the appellant challenged less than all grounds, leaving abuse and neglect as an unchallenged ground for termination. The second step was that a preponderance of the evidence showed that termination was in the child’s best interest. In both steps, the likelihood of future harm was a factor. The circuit court found that the parent had abused and neglected the children, denied that any abuse ever occurred, and refused to change. “This analysis, which specifically links the statutory grounds establishing Father’s past abuse and neglect with the likelihood of future harm to the Children, is precisely what is required [.]” The circuit court terminated parental rights and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
IN THE INTEREST OF H.P. AND A.E.P. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent v. B.A.P., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39226 and SD39227 Consolidated

Health

State Legal Expense Fund was liable for providers’ defense 
The elements of a claim on the State Legal Expense Fund included having “provided services without compensation or with compensation only from a governmental agency.” Circuit courts could grant a motion for summary judgment on undisputed facts supported by the summary judgment record. The summary judgment record included “the State’s own admissions and concessions.” The claimant health care providers established the element of compensation and the State failed to raise a genuine dispute as to that fact without evidence. Limitations on coverage did not apply to health care providers. The circuit court entered summary judgment for the claimants and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Alexis Vollmar, M.D., et al. vs. Catherine L. Hanaway, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88234

Local government

Findings of guilt affirmed without ordinances in evidence
Neighbors’ complaints and a city employee’s testimony were sufficient evidence to show a violation of the animal noise ordinance. The remedy for the city’s failure to support an element of a charge was dismissal, and the circuit court did not err in denying that remedy. The presence of a pile of wood chips in the defendant’s yard for two months supported a finding that the pile was a mosquito breeding site and not a ground cover. Testimony that the defendant called an animal back into her yard showed a violation of an animal-at-large ordinance. The defendant did not preserve any objection to the plaintiff city’s failure to disclose its certified copies before trial, and such failure was not plain error because no surprise occurred. The appellant also failed to preserve a constitutional argument by raising it at the first opportunity and including it in a point relied on, and including it in the brief’s argument section was insufficient. The provisions of an ordinance were subject to stipulation, but not judicial notice, and were admitted into the record only if on file or by certified printed copy. Without the ordinances setting the amounts of fines, the record did not support the fines that the circuit court imposed, so imposing the fines was plain error. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed as to all findings of guilt but reversed as to fines imposed without supporting ordinances in evidence. 
(Overview summary)
City of Florissant, Respondent, v. Jubin Lee, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113228

Orders of protection

Evidence insufficient, new trial ordered 
Circuit courts could issue full orders of protection for stalking, the elements of which included a petitioner fear of physical harm. The petitioner testified to fear of physical harm to the petitioner’s children, but not to the petitioner. That evidence was insufficient to support a full order of protection. “Where a plaintiff prevails in the trial court and an appellate court reverses because of insufficient evidence, the preference is to remand for a new trial.” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for a new trial. 
(Overview summary)
R.B., Respondent, v. J.B., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113707

Post-conviction

No investigation into facts was necessary when the defendant didn’t mention them 
“When a defendant fails to inform counsel of the facts necessary to support a defense, counsel does not render constitutionally deficient performance in failing to raise that defense [.]” The movant charged trial counsel with ineffective assistance for failing to investigate an interrogation that the movant alleged followed several sleepless nights. But the movant never told trial counsel about any sleep deprivation. And the record negated the movant’s characterizations of the interrogation as coercive and the movant’s statements as involuntary. Also, because objections to evidence of those statements would have been meritless, the movant suffered no prejudice. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Matthew Ryan Rouner vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87785

No transcript, no appeal 
Rules of appellate practice required the appellants to file a transcript of any evidentiary hearing, and appeals were subject to dismissal when the omission of a transcript inhibited appellate review. Such was the case when the appellant challenged a judgment for lack of substantial evidence. The circuit court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, and the movant appealed, but the movant never filed a transcript of the evidentiary hearing despite notice and extensions of time to comply. Appellate courts could “presume that omitted portions of the record are unfavorable to the appellant and favorable to the trial court’s decision.” But the Missouri Court of Appeals could not review the judgment transcript so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Zachary D. Lee vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87324

No appointment, no abandonment
Timely filing was an element of any motion. Abandonment by post-conviction counsel was an exception to the requirement of timely filing but applied only to appointed counsel. Abandonment did not apply to counsel whom the circuit court did not appoint, even if counsel was a public defendant. Movant’s counsel entered an appearance but the record did not show an appointment. Nevertheless, the circuit court ruled on the amended motion instead of the initial motion. The initial motion had claims that were not in the amended motion so the judgment was not final. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded the action for the circuit court to rule on the initial motion.
CORNELIUS PERKINS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38999

Circumstances showed meth was not OTC
When abandonment was clear of the record, remand for an inquiry was unnecessary and courts reviewed motions “without further delay.” The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice resulting from deficient performance and counsel’s performance was presumptively sufficient. Waiving a jury trial for a more dispassionate fact-finder was sound strategy. Evidence showing that movant possessed contraband, not over-the-counter, methamphetamine included chemical analysis, concealment, and intoxication. The elements of tampering with physical evidence as charged included the purpose to impair a felony prosecution, and that purpose need not come to fruition for a conviction. Trial counsel and appellate counsel were not ineffective for choosing against challenging those findings. Impeachment evidence supported movant’s claim only if it raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt and text messages from victim’s phone supported no defense. Appellate counsel’s choice of rulings to challenge was “virtually unchallengeable [.]” The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
JONATHAN LEE JENKINS, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38917

No relief on circuit court error
Circuit court error was subject to review on direct appeal, and anything subject to direct appeal was not grounds for post-conviction relief, absent rare and exceptional circumstance. And that circumstance had to have been unknown to movant during trial and direct appeal. Movant alleged that he preferred self-representation, and challenged the circuit court’s procedure on that matter, movant knew about the error at trial. Movant went through two appeals, did not raise the circuit court error he raised in the motion, and showed no rare and exceptional circumstance. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
STEPHEN G. PERRY, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38890

Post-conviction relief

No prejudice, no relief 
On a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant had to show prejudice from the counsel’s deficient performance. Trial counsel omitted forcible felony language from a self-defense instruction, based on trial counsel’s extensive experience with juries, and the movant offered no evidence or authority showing that prejudice resulted. “This Court finds Movant’s argument to be purely speculative and conclusory, which does not satisfy his burden of establishing prejudice.” The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Thomas J. Bricker, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113343

Probate

No safe harbor for contesting trust 
Documents governing a trust could provide that any beneficiary who contested the instrument forfeited their benefit and courts enforced those provisions. That included a challenge to a document amending a trust. Neither good faith nor probable cause supported an exception to that rule. The circuit court ruled in the trust’s favor and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of: Suzanne M. Kolb, Deceased.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113967

Real estate

Beneficiary deed did not sever joint tenancy 
A party with the burden of proof prevailed on summary judgment when that party established the material facts of the claim — facts under which the law entitled that party to a favorable judgment — unless the non-moving party raised a genuine dispute as to at least one such fact. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment stating that the plaintiff was the sole owner of property. The plaintiff’s motion established that the death of the decedent left the plaintiff as the only surviving tenant held by joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Survivorship was an automatic inheritance of the surviving joint tenants subject to an inter vivos transfer. The defendant showed that the decedent had named the defendant on an executed and recorded beneficiary deed. But beneficiary deeds could not transfer of title to property held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship under the governing statute. Therefore, the defendant’s showing did not put any material fact in dispute. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
BRIAN S. SIELERT, Respondent v. JORDAN G. SIELERT, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD39233

Schools

Defendant’s verdict affirmed in sex discrimination claims 
The plaintiff student charged the defendants school and gym teacher with gender-based discrimination and a hostile environment through excessive discipline, aiding and abetting that conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements of that claim included gender as a motivating factor, which required evidence of disparate treatment under similar circumstances, which the plaintiff did not show. And the evidence showed that the motivation was the plaintiff’s membership on an athletic team, not the plaintiff’s gender, so a directed verdict on those theories was not error. As to assault and retaliation, expert medical testimony was unnecessary to prove emotional damages, and the plaintiff’s offer of proof did not show that the evidence was not cumulative, so the plaintiff did not show that prejudice resulted from the exclusion of such evidence. When the defendant’s closing argument stated that the plaintiff had offered no evidence of therapy, and the circuit court overruled the plaintiff’s objection, no plain error occurred because the plaintiff could have offered such evidence and did not. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Patricia Jackson, as Next Friend for L.J., a Minor vs. Excelsior Springs School District and Terri Irons
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87661