Case summaries for May 9-15, 2025

Civil | Criminal | Local government | Real estate

Civil

Must raise affirmative defense in answer
A defending party could have summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support the movant’s properly-pleaded affirmative defense.” Affirmative defenses were well-pleaded when a responsive pleading alleged facts supporting the affirmative defense and those not raised were generally waived. Statutes of limitations were affirmative defenses and defendants’ answer did not raise the statute of limitations. A motion for summary judgment was no substitute for raising that affirmative defense as required. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the affirmative defense not well-pleaded so the Court of Appeals reversed that judgment.
JANETTE WHITLOW, Appellant v. CURTIS WHITLOW, TWAJANA MOSS, and TAMMY HENRY, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38745

Criminal

Abandonment of a corpse discussed
Appellate review of a conviction included deference to the trier of fact’s findings and disregard of evidence contrary to the verdict. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits peremptory challenges to be made to remove ‘potential jurors solely on account of their race.’” The state showed that its strike of a Black venireperson was not pretextual notwithstanding the presence of a similarly situated white venireperson, because the latter was forthcoming in voir dire while the former was reticent, and the state struck other such persons. Constitutional provisions protected persons from self-incrimination, and the elements for abandonment of a corpse included a duty to report a crime that the defendant committed, but the defendant waived any constitutional challenge by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity. When a statute does not specify the mental state required for a criminal offense, the mental state was purposely or knowingly. The elements of abandonment of a corpse included awareness that the body was dead, which the state showed with unchallenged evidence supporting other offenses, like fatally shooting the victim. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Johnathan L. Bradford 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86601

Local government

Dismissal of actions against officials affirmed
In an action against the state or state employees, the plaintiffs had to allege facts that showed an exception to sovereign immunity and official immunity, because an exception to those immunities was an element of such a claim. The plaintiff cited the exceptions of malice and bad faith, which did not apply to sovereign immunity, only to official immunity, as to which the plaintiff alleged only conclusory characterizations. That pleading was insufficient. The circuit court dismissed the actions and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
TERRY METCALF, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FLORENCE LORENE BEARD, et al., Defendants-Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38276

Real estate

Statute did not apply to existing covenants 
The defendant homeowners’ association had a covenant restricting solar panels. Restrictions on solar panels were barred under new legislation. New legislation could act retrospectively if it altered only procedural rights. If new legislation purported to alter substantive rights already vested, such legislation constituted retrospective legislation barred by the Constitution. New legislation presumptively acted on such substantive rights prospectively only, so the defendant’s pre-existing restrictive covenant continued unaffected. Neither public policy favoring solar power, nor the time between the bill’s passage and effective date, rebutted the presumption of prospective effect. The circuit court issued declaratory judgment for the defendant, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
COLLEEN EIKMEIER and WILLIAM S. LOVE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GRANITE SPRINGS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Defendant-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38515