Case summaries for Dec. 12-18, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Contracts | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Tax

Appellate

Deficient brief required dismissal 
Appellants pro se and represented had to be subject to the same law, including the rules governing appellate briefing, for the sake of impartiality. Advocating on the appellant’s behalf would be inevitable, perhaps on the wrong theory, if the Missouri Court of Appeals tried to construe the appellant’s own incomplete advocacy. The appellant’s statement of facts failed to set forth the facts relevant to the appellant’s theory on appeal. The appellant’s points relied on cited authority but failed to allege facts on which such authority required reversal. Those deficiencies precluded appellate review, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Vance Clark, Appellant, v. Benjamin Aranda, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113541

Civil

Statute of limitations waived 
“The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and as such, it must be raised in the responsive pleadings.” In an action under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act, the defendants raised a statute of limitations but never raised the statute applicable to an action under the act, and for the defendants to cite the applicable authority did not require the plaintiffs to file a motion for a more definite and certain statement. The circuit court nevertheless granted the defendants' summary judgment in part, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary)
Jeffrey Cox, et al. vs. Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions, INC. f/k/a Paine Webber Mortgage Acceptance Corporation IV
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87645

Improper instruction supported new trial 
Whether an instruction deviated from approved language was a matter of law subject to de novo review. Such deviation raised a presumption of prejudice but was a matter of fact on which appellate courts deferred to circuit courts, subject to appellant showing an abuse of discretion. In drafting an instruction to ignore the defendant’s impeachment evidence, the circuit court had to define technical terms for the jury, like offense and conviction. “[T]he attempt to cure improper impeachment with an improper instruction resulted in prejudicial error.” The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion for new trial and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary)
Shahidah Hazziez vs. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87219

Contracts

Capacity shown, no undue influence shown 
The circuit court barred the plaintiff appellant from testifying about why the plaintiff was acting as guardian and conservator for the plaintiff’s father, but that testimony was cumulative of other evidence and unduly prejudicial due to the timing of events, and the record on appeal was insufficient to show any prejudice. In any transaction, a presumption of undue influence arose only under a confidential or fiduciary relationship and otherwise required evidence that a party was robbed of their will, which neither long-time acquaintance nor bad financial decisions respectively showed. In a contract for the sale of real property, buyer’s consideration consisted of a promissory note that allowed the parties to undo the transaction, but did not otherwise relieve one party of any obligations, so that consideration was not illusory, and the contact was not unconscionable. Unconscionability was a matter of law for the circuit court, not for the jury, because it was a matter of contract interpretation. Instructions describing the burden of proof on contractual capacity were both affirmative, rather than affirmative and converse, but did not shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff seeking rescission. Stating “no objection” constituted abandonment of any challenge to a hammer instruction. The circuit court entered judgment for the seller and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Cody Joseph Enderle, Guardian of the Person of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, an Incapacitated Person, and Conservator of the Estate of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, a Disabled Person, Appellant, v. GERCKEN KELSEY, LLC AND RICHARD H. GERCKEN
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87646

Criminal

Removal from registry affirmed 
Circuit courts could remove persons from Missouri’s sex offender registry. The registry had to list persons who committed certain offenses. The offenses, if committed in another state, were defined by ages of victim and perpetrator, use of force, and harm. The petitioner committed certain offenses in Indiana. But the petitioner did not have the required age difference with the victims, and the victims did not meet the age requirement, for registration. Also, the Indiana offenses were of strict liability and did not involve force or harm. The petitioner was exempt from registration, so the circuit court ordered the petitioner’s name removed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
S.C., Respondent, vs. Gabe Gore, City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Chief Robert J. Tracy, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chief of Police, Defendants, Colonel Michael Turner, Superintendent Missouri State Highway Patrol, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113332

No state’s disclosure of witness was necessary 
On written request of the defendant, the State had to disclose any witnesses in rebuttal of an alibi, but only if the defendant disclosed the alibi. The defendant did not disclose the time and place of the alibi, nor the witness testifying to the alibi, so the State produced an undisclosed witness. “[T]he State was unfairly surprised by [defendant]’s failure to disclose specific information about his alibi defense [, so] the State’s “rebuttal witness[] need not be disclosed.” And the defendant’s alibi covered less than the relevant time so the Missouri Court of Appeals did not address whether prejudice resulted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112762

Evidence

Value shown 
State witnesses identified the defendant from screenshots from a surveillance video recording, and the defendant objected that the original video was not in evidence under the best evidence rule. But the best evidence rule only applied when the original’s content was at issue, and only the screenshots were in evidence, because that was all the witnesses testified about. “The fact that they derived from a surveillance video is immaterial to how they were used at trial.” The elements of stealing class C felony included the value of the things stolen. “An owner without experience in evaluating an item’s value can provide ‘substantial evidence of an item’s worth,’ so [an e]mployee’s experience in valuing [the stolen items] makes his testimony even more significant.” The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of the defendant’s enhanced sentence as a persistent offender, though persistent offender status was absent from the State’s pleadings, because the defendant had actual notice that the State was seeking that enhancement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112852

Value not shown 
The elements of stealing class A misdemeanor included the value of the things stolen, which was subject to proof by evidence of purchase price, age, and condition. None of that was in the record. The State showed that defendant stole automobile key fobs from a dealership but did not even show that the dealership owned them. Too many inferences were necessary even for the jury to use its own knowledge of an automobile key fob’s replacement value. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of the defendant’s enhanced sentence as a prior offender, though prior offender status was absent from the State’s pleadings, because the defendant had actual notice that the State was seeking that enhancement. The Court of Appeals remanded the action for entry of a finding of guilt on the lesser included offense of stealing class D misdemeanor. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112851

Family

Abuse and neglect supported TPR 
Because parental rights were fundamental, the Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in favor of reviewing deficient arguments and performing plain error review. Neither adverse rulings, nor presiding at the trial of multiple actions involving the same persons, overcame the presumption of judicial impartiality and showed bias. Parental rights were subject to termination when, in the child’s best interests, on a finding of specified grounds. Such grounds included abuse and neglect, which the State showed with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the appellant parent committed severe and recurrent physical abuse on her children. The circuit court’s findings, including its projections of future events from past events, were not against the weight of de minimis evidence of efforts at reform. 
(Overview summary)
Paul W. Bringer, et al., Appellants, v. Stephen Bringer, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113352

Party’s interview request did not govern GAL 
On motions to modify custody, circuit courts could appoint guardians ad litem, whose duty was to advise the circuit courts on children’s best interests. Guardians ad litem were subject to disqualification on a party’s motion for good cause. Guardians ad litem had the duty to interview the child and “persons having contact with or knowledge of the child in order to ascertain the child’s wishes, feelings, attachments[,] and attitudes.” That language did not require the guardian ad litem to interview anyone for the purpose of impeaching the movant’s adverse party. The circuit court’s denial of a motion to remove the guardian ad litem was not an abuse of discretion, at least not where the movant did not show that the child’s best interest suffered, or what information would have been revealed, and the movant could have called any prospective interviewee as a witness. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of modification. 
CRAIG ALLEN RICE, Respondent v. MADASYN SCARLETT, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38873

Personal injury

Sovereign immunity and official immunity applied 
Motions for dismissal, or for judgment on the pleadings, converted to motions for summary judgment when they included matters that were outside the pleadings and not excluded by the circuit court. Sovereign immunity protected the State and its political subdivisions from tort liability with exceptions that included self-insurance. Self-insurance did not include defendant governing body’s statutorily-required budget line item for paying judgments not covered by sovereign immunity. Official immunity protected employees from liability for discretionary exercises of duty done without bad faith. Bad faith included an intent to injure that the plaintiff did not allege. Discretion meant room for judgment in carrying out an official duty. The plaintiff cited policies governing the conduct of the defendant police officers that either did not apply or retained a degree of discretion in the defendants. The summary judgment record entitled the defendants to immunity from suit, so the circuit court entered judgment for the defendants and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. 
(Overview summary)
An'Tonique James vs. The School District of Kansas City 33, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87823

Post-conviction

Amended motion was late, only initial motion was before the courts 
Retained counsel represented the movant on direct appeal and on post-conviction relief. Any resulting conflict of interest notwithstanding, the retained counsel was not within the abandonment doctrine, so the retained counsel’s late filing of an amended motion waived relief under the amended motion. Nevertheless, the circuit court ruled on the amended motion, which did not include all claims in the initial motion. Therefore, the judgment was not final. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, remanded the action to circuit court for a ruling on the initial motion, and ordered the appointment of new counsel. 
(Overview summary)
Billy Wagner, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113083

Real estate

Inverse condemnation judgments turned on notice 
In an action for inverse condemnation, the elements included notice of damages from the plaintiff landowner to the defendant political subdivision, for which notice to some other property owner plaintiffs was no substitute. Those other plaintiffs sought only money damages for a partial taking only, not a determination of title for a total taking. Therefore, a submissible case for inverse condemnation by total taking was unnecessary, and the judgment was not defective for lack of a reasonably certain legal description nor transfer of title. A spoken motion for directed verdict preserved an argument, also raised in a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for appeal. While post-judgment motions were pending related to the original judgment, the circuit court timely entered an amended judgment that started the time for filing and ruling on a separate round of post-judgment motions related to that amended judgment, and for filing a notice of appeal. Appellate courts did not have to consider amicus’s arguments not raised by appellants. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm, respondents; Kevin Laughlin, appellant-respondent vs. City of Kearney, Missouri, respondant-appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87389 consolidated with WD87408, WD87467, and WD87497

Interest not recorded had priority over mortgage 
In an action to enforce a contract, courts must first determine whether a contract existed and then determine its provisions. Provisions were ambiguous only on their face, and only then was construction required, and only then was parol evidence admissible in aid of construction. The elements of a contract included consideration. Consideration had to exist for an option provision but a single consideration for the contract as a whole could also constitute consideration for the option. The elements of a contract also included mutual agreement, meaning a meeting of the minds, but determined objectively by outward manifestations “[d]isregarding either party’s secret surmise or undisclosed assumption [.]” The circuit court erred in admitting and relying on testimony and concluding that no meeting of the minds occurred. All joint contracts were really joint and several contracts, meaning that each promisor had an option that they could exercise alone, so notice was sufficient to exercise the option even though signed by fewer than all plaintiff option holders. The refusal of the defendants, except one who could not perform without the others, constituted anticipatory breach. The holders of the option did not record that interest and holder of a second deed of trust recorded its interest, but the holder on the second deed of trust had actual notice of the option, which gave the option priority over the second deed of trust. 
(Overview summary)
Paul W. Bringer, et al., Appellants, v. Stephen Bringer, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113352

Tax

Tax lien expired 
Various remedies were available for collecting on tax debts and a time limitation on one remedy did not extinguish the debt, leaving other remedies available. Available remedies included filing certificates of tax liens with circuit clerks. Such liens were like default judgments, including as to execution, which were “presumed to be paid and satisfied” after a specified time, unless revived or paid upon. No payment or revival on the director of revenue’s lien, filed with the circuit clerk, occurred within the specified time, so the lien expired. The circuit court denied a motion to quash garnishment, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, and remanded the action with instructions to quash the garnishment. 
(Overview summary)
Vance Clark, Appellant, v. Benjamin Aranda, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113541