Case summaries for June 5-11, 2026

Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Post-conviction | Probate

Civil

Grounds for motions to set aside distinguished 
Supreme Court rules superseded statutes so, when a time limit for filing as set forth in a rule and a statute conflicted, the rule prevailed. Circuit courts could set aside a judgment that was irregular, meaning procedurally flawed, on a motion filed within a reasonable time that was not more than a year after the judgment issued. The movants filed too late to set aside a judgment as irregular. Circuit courts could set aside a judgment that was void. A motion on that basis was due within a reasonable time that could be more than a year. Void meant issued without due process of law, which included notice and an opportunity to be heard. The movants had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the respondents’ motion to dismiss, presented argument, and never asked for an evidentiary hearing. The circuit court dismissed the motion to set aside, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment but denied an award of attorney fees for the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Paul David Holmes and Lorna Kay Holmes, Appellants, v. The Greens of Broadmoor Condominium Association, et al., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113819

No collateral attack on a foreign judgment 
“Wisconsin and Missouri discourage collateral attacks on final judgments particularly when the party has not appealed that final judgment” including judgments of dismissal. In an action filed in Wisconsin, the plaintiffs received a judgment of dismissal from which they sought no relief by post-judgment motion or appeal. Instead, the plaintiffs pursued a parallel action in Missouri circuit court. On the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, citing the Wisconsin judgment, the plaintiffs argued that the Wisconsin judgment was procedurally flawed and not entitled to full faith and credit. Those arguments constituted a forbidden collateral attack on the Wisconsin judgment. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Kristine Timmerman, Individually, and as Guardian of Bruce Timmerman, Appellants, v. Actuant Corporation, Enerpac Tool Group Corporation, Enerpac Corporation, and Laclede Chain Manufacturing Company, LLC, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113598

Criminal

Causation explained for child endangerment 
The appellant possessed controlled substances in a manner accessible to minors, who ingested them and suffered ill effects, one fatally. The elements of felony child endangerment included “substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child [.]” Substantial risk did not include causation, much less proximate cause, of injury or death, so intervening cause was not a defense. As to prior and persistent offender status, the appellant stipulated to evidence and waived a jury finding, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of that finding. The appellants’ briefs had to include an argument section with citations to authority that applied to the facts, which the appellant’s brief omitted. Challenges to a judgment as unsupported by substantial evidence required the appellant to address all evidence favoring the judgment, which the appellant failed to do. Points not properly briefed were abandoned. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Noonan, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113787

No plain error in description of defense expert’s relationship to defendant 
The defendant did not unequivocally stand on his right to remain silent, so the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s objection to statements made during interrogation. Constitutional provisions required the State to correct any evidence that it knew to be false. Even if the cited matter was false, it was also corrected before the circuit court made its findings of guilt. And the defendant failed to raise and maintain the matter at the first opportunity, as necessary to preserve the matter, and did not seek plain error review. Contrary to an order in limine, the State referred to the defendant as a client of a defense expert and the circuit court did not intervene. On that matter, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review because the defendant did not describe any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, considering the presumption that the circuit court would consider only admissible evidence in a bench trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. STEVEN C. CALVERLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38828

Evidence was inevitably found under standard procedures 
On review of the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, appellate courts deferred the circuit court’s findings of fact but reviewed the ruling on those facts de novo. Warrantless searches were mostly illegal and supported the suppression of evidence found as a result. But evidence that law enforcement officers found inevitably under standard procedures for conducting an arrest was an exception to the warrant requirement. That included the arresting officers’ asking whether the defendant needed anything from the defendant’s house, the defendant’s request for personal items, the officers’ entry into the house, and the officers’ finding of methamphetamine and a firearm. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. STEVIE DON LINLEY, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39047

Evidence

An admission authenticated a signature 
At issue was the authentication of an arbitration agreement. A lender offered an affidavit stating that the signature was the borrower’s. But the affidavit was not notarized. Affidavits without notarization constituted hearsay and a hearsay objection was sufficient to preserve the matter for appeal. Nevertheless, a finding that the borrower signed the agreement had support in the borrower’s repeated admissions. “[W]e are not critical of counsel’s strategic decision to admit what appears to be the truth.” The circuit court affirmed an arbitrator’s award and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
NCB Management Services, Inc., Respondent, v. Eleanor Wallace, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113669

Post-conviction

Hearing loss did not require intervention 
The right to counsel included the right to understand what was happening at trial and consult with counsel about it. The movant alleged a hearing loss in each ear, never told the circuit court about it, and offered an audiology test taken a year after trial. During the trial, when the movant could not hear questions, trial counsel and the prosecutor repeated their questions until the movant understood them. As to the answers, the movant’s testimony showed that he heard them. Because the movant did not show that he could not participate in his defense, the movant did not show that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to remedy that problem. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
DANIEL FLOYD FRANKLIN, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38956

Probate

Guardianship denied 
In an action for guardianship, the plaintiff had the burden of proving the respondent’s incapacity at the time of the hearing by clear and convincing evidence. That burden never shifted. The plaintiff’s evidence was stale, and the respondent refuted the plaintiff’s allegations by showing that medication had controlled the respondent’s mental illness, so the circuit court entered judgment for the respondent. A ruling against the party assigned the burden of proof needed no supporting evidence. Therefore, a judgment against such a party was not subject to appeal for the absence of substantial supporting evidence nor as against the weight of the evidence. Even if it were, the petitioner failed to follow the analysis for such challenges. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
In the Matter of: Canaan S. Davis Barbara J. Falbo vs. Canaan S. Davis
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88339