423 S.W.3d 844
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- T.E. appeals a February 25, 2013 full order of protection entered in favor of C.I.A. and against T.E. under the Adult Abuse Act.
- The order prohibited T.E. from further abuse or threats and from any contact with C.I.A.; it expired August 26, 2013 with no evidence of extension.
- The appellate court sua sponte addresses mootness; the record shows no ongoing practical effect from the expired order.
- TE’s appeal was submitted February 21, 2014, after the order had expired, rendering the case generally moot absent a public-interest exception.
- Missouri cases establish that mootness is the default presumption for expired orders, with limited discretionary exceptions under section 455.007.
- The court concludes the public-interest exception does not apply because TE does not allege significant collateral consequences from the expired order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to expiration of the order? | TE argues for merits review despite expiration. | CIA contends mootness bars review. | Appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Does the public-interest exception to mootness apply under §455.007? | TE asserts ongoing public-interest concerns warrant review. | CIA contends no significant collateral consequences exist. | Exception does not apply; no review on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- T.C.T. v. Shafinia, 351 S.W.3d 34 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (mootness raised sua sponte; general rule against deciding moot issues)
- Hail v. Hail, 380 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (mootness principle; expired orders generally nonreviewable)
- Aldrich v. Goodman, 340 S.W.3d 669 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (discretionary mootness exception when case becomes moot after submission)
- Brown v. Yettaw, 116 S.W.3d 733 (Mo.App.S.D.2003) (trial court may take a more active role when parties appear pro se in abuse proceedings)