Case summaries for May 10-16, 2024

Attorneys | Civil | Contract | Criminal | Juvenile | Real estate | Workers' compensation

Attorneys

Misappropriation results in disbarment
The Supreme Court of Missouri has inherent authority to discipline lawyers. A lawyer failed to maintain an Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account separately from other accounts; comingled client funds, personal funds, and other business funds in that account; and failed to promptly reconcile the account. The lawyer also lent money from client trusts to himself for personal use without permission, concealed the loans from a client’s guardian and other beneficiaries of the client’s trust, and misrepresented the status of a loan. That conduct harmed the beneficiaries by requiring them to hire counsel and by delaying their benefits under the trust. Such courses of conduct damaged the integrity of the legal profession and constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. “[M]isappropriation of client funds is a grave matter and most often warrants disbarment” absent “compelling mitigating factors” that were not present. The Supreme Court of Missouri disbarred the lawyer. 
(Overview summary) 
In re: James T. Crump, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100343

Civil

Adverse outcome is evidence of negligence
Summary judgment was due when a party established, beyond genuine dispute, facts entitling that party to judgment as a matter of law. In an action for malpractice, an adverse outcome constitutes some, though not conclusive, evidence of negligence. Plaintiff patient offered evidence that a chiropractic treatment did not ordinarily break a patient’s ribs, and that defendant chiropractor must have applied the treatment incorrectly. That evidence raised a genuine dispute as to material facts, the circuit court erred in entering summary judgment for defendant, and the Missouri Court of Appeals reverses and remands. 
(Overview summary) 
Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale, Appellants, v. Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111973

Contract

Seller’s purchase money lien took priority
Seller of land had an equitable purchase money lien on property in the amount of the sale price yet unpaid. That lien had first priority unless a lender did not know of the unpaid amount.  The relevant facts were set forth in documents related to the sale, and appellant lender chose to rely instead on suggestions in an advertisement that seller did not place. Neither that reliance, nor when the parties recorded their interests, elevated the priority of lender’s lien. On a claim for reformation of a contract and deed, plaintiff had the burden to show a mutual scrivening mistake of the parties by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; lender’s evidence of checks incorrectly made out to seller’s owner did not negate that evidence. When the lender purchased the property at a foreclosure sale, circuit court did not err in quieting title in lender, subject to the seller’s lien.
(Overview summary) 
Fabius Village Mobile Home Park, L.L.C., Respondent, v. Wyatt Land Holdings, L.L.C., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111690

Criminal

Search during mobile booking okay
Constitutional provisions protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, which included warrantless searches generally, but exceptions included searches incident to arrest. Arrest did not require an announcement, or handcuffs, only a physical limitation on the arrested person. Such events occurred when law enforcement officers blocked defendant from leaving and told defendant that she would be “booked.” “The mobile format does not change the purpose behind performing a search incident to arrest, which is to protect officer safety and to preserve evidence.” The circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Patricia Boehmer, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111402

Deliberation shown
The elements of murder in the first degree included deliberation, which the state showed through evidence that defendant attacked victim from behind and pursued victim to continue the attack. “Striking a person ‘in the head with a hammer multiple times demonstrates intent to kill or inflict serious injury.’” Photographs of victim’s body were relevant to identity and cause of death, and they were gruesome because the crime was gruesome, so the photographs were not unduly prejudicial. Attempts to conceal the offense showed consciousness of guilt, and the state’s closing argument on that matter did not misstate the law, so the circuit court did not err in allowing that argument. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Beau Rothwell, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED110819

Remote sexual performance case transferred
The state has jurisdiction over events that occur within its boundaries, and earlier related events outside its boundaries do not negate that jurisdiction. On charges of trafficking a child in the second degree and promoting a sexual performance by a child, the evidence supported inferences necessary for a conviction, including enticement and an audience. The audience’s physical presence was not an element of either offense. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence did not constitute a challenge to the form of a verdict director so appellant showed no plain error in giving the verdict director to the jury. The Missouri Court of Appeals transferred the action to the Supreme Court of Missouri. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jeremy Baum
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD85148

Overwhelming evidence of guilt dispatches claims on speedy trial and taser video
Constitutional provisions protect the right to a speedy trial. A trial was not speedy and was presumptively prejudicial when it occurred 70 months after charges. But 10 of those months resulted from defendant’s motions for continuance, and other delays resulted from COVID-19 issues. Defendant waited five and a half years after indictment to assert the right to speedy trial, while the circuit court convened the trial four months later. Defendant showed no prejudice from the delay from inability to locate a witness before trial, when defendant located witness before sentencing, and evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The circuit court did not err in concluding that defendant experienced no violation of the right to a speedy trial and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. “[E]rrors in admitting evidence require reversal only when prejudicial to the point that they are outcome-determinative.” To be admissible, evidence must be both logically relevant, meaning tending to prove guilt; and legally relevant, meaning more probative than prejudicial. Evidence of uncharged crimes is generally inadmissible to prove propensity but is admissible if it gives the fact-finder a more complete picture of the events. The defendant took a corrections officer’s taser and used it on corrections officers, but also accidentally tased a fellow inmate. The taser recorded video, which the state offered into evidence, showed the fellow inmate’s reaction. Whether that evidence was admissible, the Missouri Court of Appeals did not have to determine, because evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that any error was not outcome-determinative. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. WILLIAM HENRY III, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37196

Juvenile

No continuance needed when movant switched counsel
In an action to terminate parental rights, a parent made several last-minute changes of counsel. The circuit court sufficiently advised the parent of the right to counsel. Denial of a continuance was subject to review for an abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court denied a parent’s motion for continuance for further discovery under a rule that required the juvenile officer to produce records in the juvenile officer’s possession, not to procure documents in someone else’s possession. Another rule required the circuit court to allow the parent’s counsel reasonable time to prepare for hearing, but parent’s “serial effort to delay and hinder the adjudication of the underlying proceedings” constituted dereliction, so denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied a motion to dismiss for failure to file transcripts but preferred to resolve the appeal on the merits and presumed that the missing transcripts favored respondent.
(Overview summary) 
In the Interest of: K.K.S.S. vs. Juvenile Officer
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86175

Real estate

Enforcement of covenant required notice
Whether the source of a restrictive covenant is a deed or a contract, and whether the covenant is personal or runs with the land, to enforce the covenant against a successor requires actual or constructive notice of the covenant to the successor. “Actual notice includes documents, such as a title policy or a title commitment, that inform the [successor that] the land is burdened at the time of purchase[,]” and “constructive notice [includes] all recorded instruments and any recital therein lying within the chain of title[,]” but “a deed or instrument lying outside his chain of title imparts no notice.” A predecessor and defendant successor employed the same law firm, and the predecessor’s lawyer had knowledge of the restrictive covenant, but those facts did not impute notice to the successor. Comments spoken by the circuit judge did not constitute a conversion of a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment, and the judgment was subject to review only on the text of the judgment, not on such comments. The judgment was subject to appeal because of the circuit court’s certification of no just reason for delay.
(Overview summary) 
RVR Enterprises, INC. vs. Cinnamon Hill, LLC
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86332

Workers’ compensation

Claimant’s attorney lien restored
Statutes governing workers’ compensation provided that the employer had the right to select future medical care providers and provided no waiver of that right. On review of an administrative law judge’s award, constitutional, statutory, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s regulatory provisions confined the commission’s rulings to those pleaded in the petition for review. Therefore, the commission could not “consider non-appealed matters without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and remanding for further proceedings.” Statutes and regulations allowed recovery of medical expenses, and a claimant’s attorney fee up to 25% of recovery, and provided that such fee constituted a lien. But the commission struck unchallenged expenses from claimant’s award and thus reduced the claimant’s attorney fee. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the award to the commission. 
CYNTHIA HELMIG, Appellant v. SPRINGFIELD R-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38181