A.D.D. v. PLE Enterprises Inc.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 582
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Woodrich and A.D.D. sued Johnson, Ballin, and Rolling Hills for negligence and negligent entrustment arising from a car collision.
- Rolling Hills was served via its registered agent; it did not answer or defend as required by Rule 55.25.
- A default judgment was entered on March 4, 2011 awarding damages totaling $2,865,980.30 against all defendants jointly and severally.
- More than a year later, Rolling Hills moved to set aside the default judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(4) arguing the judgment was void.
- The circuit court granted the motion as to Rolling Hills, finding the judgment void for lack of authorization and due process concerns.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the default judgment was not void and should be reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment against Rolling Hills was void for due process. | Rolling Hills had notice and waived defenses by failing to appear; no due process violation. | The default judgment improperly exceeded pleadings and was void for lack of due process. | Default judgment not void; due process not violated; trial court erred in setting aside. |
| Whether the joint and several damages against all defendants were void. | Damages were properly awarded against Rolling Hills along with others. | Joint and several liability across all defendants was improper and voidable. | Joint and several liability not void; judgment not void; remand for reinstatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forsyth Fin. Group, LLC v. Hayes, 351 S.W.3d 738 (Mo.App.2011) (voidness requires lack of jurisdiction or due process; judgment not void merely erroneous)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo.banc 2009) (subject matter jurisdiction determined by constitution; limits on broad use of term)
- AMG Franchises, Inc. v. Crack Team USA, Inc., 289 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App.2009) (clarifies jurisdictional scope post-J.C.W. ex rel. Webb)
- Green v. Penn-America Insurance Co., 242 S.W.3d 374 (Mo.App.2007) (default petitions evaluated with favorable intendment; post-judgment standards are stricter)
- Jew v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 126 S.W.3d 394 (Mo.App.2004) (limitations under section 511.160 on damages beyond petition; not about jurisdiction)
- Sieg v. Int’l Envtl. Mgmt., Inc., 375 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App.2012) (void judgment standards; due process not implicated for default when notice and opportunity to be heard occurred)
- Capital One Bank USA v. Khan, 359 S.W.3d 578 (Mo.App.2012) (default judgment framework; notice and opportunity to defend preserved)