Case summaries for August 2-8, 2024

ADR | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Real estate

ADR

Arbitrator’s determination of arbitrability was incomplete in Kia theft cases
When the parties’ designated arbitrator declined arbitration “at that time[,]” for lack of prior registration of the agreement with the arbitrator, the plaintiffs brought actions against car makers over the absence of anti-theft protection in circuit court. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration that the circuit court denied. But the arbitrator had not yet exhausted its procedures, which allowed late registration of the agreement and expedited review. Appellate review of an order compelling arbitration depended on whether the parties dispute an arbitration agreement’s existence: if so, abuse of discretion; if not, de novo. Order denying arbitration vacated and remanded with directions to compel arbitration.
(Overview summary) 
Angela Martin, et al., Respondents, v. HW Automotive, LLC d/b/a HW KIA of West County, KIA America, Inc.; and Hyundai Motor America, Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112165

Arbitration compelled in Kia theft cases
When defendant car makers did not register the parties’ arbitration agreement with the arbitrator, the plaintiffs brought actions against car makers over the absence of anti-theft protection in circuit court. The defendants responded, but that response was a motion to compel arbitration, which did not constitute litigation that waived arbitration. And the plaintiffs did not even attempt arbitration as their undisputed agreement required. Order denying arbitration vacated and remanded with directions to compel arbitration.
(Overview summary)
Kiara Standifer and Quentina Tate, Respondents, v. Suntrup Hyundai, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America Corp., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112162

Civil

Right spelling correct in petition, wrong in summons, misdelivered process sufficient
Rule allowed circuit court to set aside a judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of due process, either of which could occur on failure in service of process. Process consisted of a summons and the petition. The petition correctly named and described the defendant foreign limited liability company. A foreign limited liability company was subject to service of process through defendant’s registered agent. The registered agent delivered the summons and petition to the defendant as identified in the summons, but the summons misspelled the defendant’s name so as to identify another principal of the registered agent, so the registered agent delivered process to the wrong entity. “It has long been the rule in Missouri that a summons personally served upon the right party by the wrong name is good service.” The circuit court denied the defendant’s the motion to set a side a default judgment and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Charles "Jeff" Chick vs. Moving Proz, LLC.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD86645 consolidated with WD86736

Criminal

Trial strategy negated plain error in multiple acts case
During voir dire, the state mentioned that the case was before the circuit court on a change of venue, but the defense did not object at trial. On appeal, the defendant argued that a corrective instruction was due sua sponte but did not show plain error. In closing argument, the state discussed the tactics of child sex abusers, and the defense did not object but made similar arguments, which constituted acquiescence or invited error, which waived appellate review. On charges of multiple acts, the instructions could have resulted in a less-than-unanimous verdict, and the defense did not object. But “if defense counsel objected on jury-unanimity grounds, this could very well have resulted in the submission of multiple alternative verdict directors to accommodate the multiple evinced instances[, which] was unlikely to serve defense counsel's strategy of presenting Victim 1 as not credible, and ran the substantial risk of simply reminding the jury of the numerosity of [defendant]'s acts against Victim 1.” The absence of sua sponte circuit court intervention on instructions was not plain error when the defense strategically refrained from objecting to the instructions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER A. CREVISTON, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38096

Evidence

“No objection” and strategic choice waived appellate review
Defendant’s statement of “no objection” to evidence, and strategic use of the evidence, waived even plain error review.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Robert G. Donnell
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86395

No prejudice from cumulative hearsay
Error in admitting evidence did not constitute reversible error unless it was outcome-determinative. “In a bench trial, error in admitting evidence is generally not prejudicial, unless the trial court relies on the inadmissible evidence in making its findings.” In making its findings, the circuit court expressly relied on a text from the victim’s phone to counter the defendant’s testimony, so the presumption of no prejudice did not apply. But the text was cumulative, and cumulative error is never prejudicial; and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The circuit court’s findings on the extent of the victim’s injuries were consistent with expert evidence that the circuit court was entitled to believe.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. SHANE L. MACKEY, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37997

Real estate

Reformation reversed
The elements of a claim for reformation of a deed of trust included a mutual mistake by the parties to the deed distorting the transaction from what the parties intended. Purchaser at a foreclosure sale showed a mistake by the lender, but no evidence of a mistake by the borrower, so no evidence of a mutual mistake was in the record. Judgment reforming deed reversed and remanded.
ROEBUCK FAMILY, LLC, Respondent, v. PLYMOUTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant, and REGIONS BANK, INC., and MTW TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37679