522 S.W.3d 327
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Joplin sued Wallace Bajjali in 2015 alleging breach/stop of performance and sought $1,475,000; service was made on Wallace Bajjali’s registered agent, CT Corporation.
- CT did not forward the summons because Wallace Bajjali had changed its address without notifying CT; Wallace Bajjali never actually received the papers.
- The trial court entered a default judgment for $1,475,000 against Wallace Bajjali.
- Wallace Bajjali moved for a new trial (arguing improper service); the court denied that motion in a 2015 judgment, finding service on the registered agent was proper.
- Wallace Bajjali later moved under Rule 74.05(d) to set aside the default judgment, asserting good cause and a meritorious defense; the trial court denied that motion in a 2016 judgment that incorporated the 2015 judgment but made no additional findings.
- Wallace Bajjali appealed, arguing the trial court failed to apply Rule 74.05(d) and that the evidence established good cause and a meritorious defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joplin) | Defendant's Argument (Wallace Bajjali) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to apply Rule 74.05(d) when denying motion to set aside default judgment | The court properly denied relief and is presumed to have applied correct law; no request for findings was made | Court erred because its judgment did not mention Rule 74.05(d) or expressly find on good cause and meritorious defense | Held for Joplin: absence of explicit Rule 74.05(d) citation not reversible; Rule 73.01(c) presumes findings consistent with the judgment and trial court is presumed to know the law |
| Whether the evidence established good cause and a meritorious defense warranting setting aside the default | Evidence and conflicting prior testimony supported denying credibility of Wallace Bajjali’s claims | Wallace Bajjali argued its affidavits and exhibits proved it never received service and established good cause/meritorious defense | Held for Joplin: point was multifarious and not preserved; on review trial court as factfinder could disbelieve Wallace Bajjali’s evidence, so denial stands |
| Whether the trial court was required to state reasons or findings when denying motion to set aside | Trial court not required to state reasons absent a Rule 73.01 request | Wallace Bajjali said court’s silence prevented appellate review of application of legal standards | Held for Joplin: Rule 74.05 does not require reasons; party may request Rule 73.01 findings—no such request was made |
| Whether Wallace Bajjali can strike supplemental trial materials on appeal | Joplin relied on prior testimony and pointed out conflicts in evidence; Wallace Bajjali did not object at hearing | Wallace Bajjali sought to exclude the supplemental legal file and transcript as not before the court on the 74.05 motion | Held for Joplin: Wallace Bajjali acquiesced at trial by not objecting; motion to strike denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brungard v. Risky’s Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. banc 2007) (Rule 74.05(d) permits setting aside default for good cause and meritorious defense)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (Rule 73.01(c) and requirement/request for written findings)
- Herron v. Barnard, 390 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (trial court presumed to know and apply the law; parties can request findings)
- Keefhaver v. Kimbrell, 58 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (where findings are not requested, trial court’s stated findings are gratuitous and unmade issues are deemed found in accord with the judgment)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to trial court as factfinder when findings are not requested)
- Ray Klein, Inc. v. Kerr, 272 S.W.3d 896 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (party who acquiesces to procedure in trial court cannot complain on appeal)