Case summaries for May 6 - May 12, 2022
Each week, The Missouri Bar provides links to all hand downs published online during the past seven days by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Bar has created headings and summaries for each case. Summaries are not part of the opinions of the Court. They have been prepared for the convenience of the reader and should not be quoted or cited.
No Transcript, New Trial
Audio recording of evidentiary trial was blank, so appellant could not file a transcript, despite appellant’s due diligence. Judgment reversed and remanded for a new trial.
BRIAUNA RAEANNA COLLINS, Respondent vs. DAVID JOE BANNISTER, JR., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD37464 and SD37465
Fraudulent Concealment Does Not Extend the Time to File an Action for Fraud
Fraudulent concealment extends the time for some statutes of limitation, but not those with their own specific discovery rule, like the statute of limitations on actions for fraud. That statute bars any action five years after the fraud is discoverable, or ten years after the fraud occurred, whichever happens first. Further, a charge of fraud must describe “a direct contrivance intended to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry [,]” which plaintiff did not plead. Plaintiff’s petition did not state a claim, so the circuit court did not err in dismissing it. Points relied on misstated the standard of review, combined theories of reversible error, and lacked factual context for asserted error. The Court of Appeals could not review one of the points relied on, and so dismissed it, but could understand the other.
Odi Frumhoff Schultz, Appellant, vs. Bank of America Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED109959
Inmate Action Time-Barred
Statute of limitations bars an action by an inmate against the Department of Corrections, and its divisions and employees, for breach of official duty after one year. Plaintiff inmate’s petition alleged that plaintiff was due the return of specified property more than a year before the filing of plaintiff’s petition and offered no grounds for equitable tolling. Because that petition’s allegations described the action as time-barred, dismissal or judgment on the pleadings was due.
GEORGE F. ALDRIDGE, JR., Appellant vs. BRIAN HOSKIN, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD36999
Non-Marital Property Value Changed Pending Property Division
In an action for dissolution of marriage, statutes require circuit court to set aside non-marital property to each party, then divide marital property considering factors that include the value of each party’s non-marital property. The value of one party’s non-marital property changed substantially while a ruling on property division was pending, when a party received at least $250,000 in value, according to appellant’s motion to re-open the record. In support, appellant offered to present evidence several times, but the circuit court denied the motion. “When there is no inconvenience to the court or unfair advantage to one of the parties, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse to permit the introduction of material evidence which might substantially affect the merits of the case.” Judgment vacated and remanded to reopen the record for evidence of non-marital property.
In Re the Marriage of: TRACY LYNN HALL and KELLY WAYNE HALL, TRACY LYNN HALL, Petitioner-Respondent v. KELLY WAYNE HALL, Respondent-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37056
Federal and State Law Mix with Juvenile and Civil Procedure
Claimant sought benefits under a COVID-related federal statute, providing that persons over 21 years old may re-enter foster care and receive benefits, but Missouri statute governing re-entry into foster care limits that procedure to persons under 21 years old. Statutes authorized circuit court to delegate juvenile matters to a commissioner for a recommendation but a commissioner’s recommendation, filed but not confirmed, did not constitute the juvenile division’s judgment. Statutes provided that judgment issues only after rejection of commissioner’s order and trial de novo in juvenile division. No trial de novo occurred. Without a judgment, rule on motions for rehearing does not apply. The petition also included claims for declaratory and injunctive relief never tried. The Children’s Division may appeal under statutes allowing an appeal by any party whom a judgment aggrieves generally, so no specific authorization to appeal from the juvenile division was necessary. Judgment vacated and remanded.
In the Interest of: B.D. vs. Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD84811