Capital One Bank USA v. Khan
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 234
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff sued Defendant on May 4, 2010 to collect the balance on a Capital One credit card.
- A default judgment was entered against Defendant on July 19, 2010, then set aside due to clerical errors under Rule 74.06.
- Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim on August 27, 2010; Plaintiff moved to dismiss counterclaims on November 24, 2010.
- Trial court dismissed Count II of the counterclaim and allowed amendment of Count I, after which Defendant proceeded pro se.
- At a February 7, 2011 hearing, Defendant’s counsel was denied a continuance to allow Defendant to prepare; counsel withdrew and Defendant did not appear.
- The court entered a “judgment in default” against Defendant, ordering payment of $15,796.90 plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 74.05(d) applies to set aside the judgment | Khan had timely responsive pleadings; the judgment is on the merits, not default. | Rule 74.05(d) allows setting aside a default judgment with meritorious defense and good cause. | Rule 74.05(d) does not apply; judgment was a merits judgment. |
| Whether the judgment was truly a default judgment or a merits judgment | Defendant filed responsive pleadings; judgment entered after merits-based filings. | Judgment was entered as a default due to failure to appear. | Judgment was a merits judgment, not a default judgment. |
| Whether the appeal was timely after final judgment | If final on March 8, 2011, notice of appeal was due by March 18, 2011 (or March 22, 2011 with extensions). | Appellate timing misinterpreted; the March 14 order was a nullity and not a proper appealable judgment. | No timely appeal; March 14 order voided the timeliness analysis; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brungard v. Risky’s Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. banc 2007) (default judgments favored on merits; abuse of discretion standard)
- Continental Basketball Ass’n v. Harrisburg Prof'l Sports Inc., 947 S.W.2d 471 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (policy favoring meritorious resolution of cases over default judgments)
- MBNA America Bank v. Montgomery, 269 S.W.3d 536 (Mo.App.S.D.2008) (Rule 74.05 applies to default judgments; default must be properly entered)
- Lindsey v. Lindsey, 336 S.W.3d 487 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (timing and nature of judgments when responsive pleadings are filed)
- Everest Reinsurance Co. v. Kerr, 253 S.W.3d 100 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (default judgment vs. judgment on the merits when responsive pleadings exist)
- Beeman v. Beeman, 296 S.W.3d 514 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (distinguishing Rule 74.05(d) proceedings from authorized post-judgment motions)
- State v. Garth, 278 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (timeliness and effect of motions after judgment)
- Cotleur v. Danziger, 870 S.W.2d 234 (Mo. banc 1994) (judgment on the merits after timely responsive pleading)
- Amon v. Bailey, 13 S.W.3d 305 (Mo.App.E.D.2000) (example distinguishing default and merits judgments)
- Cramer v. Carver, 125 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (timing and standards for setting aside default judgments)