Case summaries for June 28-July 4, 2024

Elections | Evidence | Family | Post-conviction | Probate | Real estate

Elections

Too late to change ballot
A county clerk placed partisan candidates on a ballot without a receipt from the county party committee. The committee sought and obtained the circuit court’s judgment and writ of mandamus keeping the candidates off the ballot. The county clerk appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which issued a stay of the writ. While the appeal was pending, the statutory authority of any court to order any change to any ballot expired, rendering the appeal moot, including any order to lift the stay or vacate the judgment. The exception for issues of general public interest did not apply because the matter was not likely to evade judicial review in the future — the present matter evaded judicial review only because the committee objected to an expedited schedule in the Missouri Court of Appeals and did not seek a writ in the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Vernon County Republican Committee, by and through Cyndia Haggard, Chairman vs. Adrienne Lee, Vernon County Clerk
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87195
 

Evidence

Business records affidavit and electronic transactions statutes applied
Statutes provided a hearsay exception for business records offered under an affidavit of specified form, but the plaintiff offered an affidavit without records. Also, someone had scratched out the name on the affidavit and handwritten the defendant’s name in its place. “[T]he bottom line regarding the admissibility of the business records is the discretionary determination by the [circuit] court of their trustworthiness.” The foundation also included the mode of preparation, which was lacking. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act provided an exception to the best evidence rule for electronic versions of documents, but only as to parties who agreed to an electronic transaction, of which plaintiff offered no evidence. On the exclusion of such evidence, no plain error occurred.
(Overview summary)
Midwest Neurosurgeons, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. April M. Cain, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111932

Family

Parties mutually breached settlement agreement
In an action for dissolution of marriage, a settlement agreement incorporated into a judgment constituted a contract. Evidence of a breach did not constitute a collateral attack on the judgment. The parties’ breach of their obligation under a contract deprived the contract of consideration so, in a probate action, the circuit court did not err in refusing to enforce the agreement.
(Overview summary)
Deborah Pagoria, Appellant, vs. Jerrold Pagoria, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111518

Post-conviction

No viable defense omitted
A witness’s testimony to only a part of the events alleged did not constitute a viable defense. The witness’s move across Missouri and out of touch, despite trial counsel’s “dexterous” search, did not show that trial counsel was ineffective. Trial counsel’s choice to make no objection to “innocuous” testimony about movant’s silence during interrogation was strategic and did not show that trial counsel was ineffective.
(Overview summary)
Levi D. Lauck, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111904

Probate

Means for waiver of jury trial were limited and exclusive
The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, defendant did not raise an issue of authority, the circuit court granted the motion in an interlocutory order, later made final as a judgment, and the defendant raised the issue of circuit court authority in a motion for new trial, preserving error. Statutes gave the probate division of the circuit court exclusive authority over property belonging to decedent, but the disputed property belonged to decedent and plaintiff jointly with rights of survivorship, so the disputed property was not subject to probate division authority. Replevin determines the right to possession, not ultimate ownership, of property as between the plaintiff and defendant; so no third party was necessary or indispensable. Constitutional provisions protected defendant’s right to a jury trial on damages, which the defendant could waive only as provided by statute and rule, so no other mechanism — even the circuit court’s inherent powers — could deprive defendant of a jury trial. Therefore, to make an interlocutory order into a final judgment as a sanction for defendant’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference was an abuse of discretion. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment for a jury trial on actual and punitive damages.
(Overview summary)
Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111696

Real estate

Recorded easement struck
The Merger Doctrine provided that, because every easement by definition had dominant and servient estates, no one could create an easement on their own property, even when dividing the property into lots. An easement so recorded was ineffective until conveyance of such lot to someone else. Such conveyance could be contemporaneous with the easement’s creation, but had to reference any easement with specificity, or by reference to some document showing the easement. A deed conveying land “subject to building lines, easements, restrictions, and conditions of record, if any,” was insufficiently specific to create an easement. The parties’ predecessors also filed a subdivision plat, and a subdivision declaration that mentioned an easement, but no easement appeared on the plat and the plat did not refer to the declaration. Those events did not create an easement. Therefore, in plaintiff’s action for injunction against use of disputed land, the circuit court erred in entering judgment for defendants, and the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Eric and Ashley English vs. Jason and Sara Barnett, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86145