Delores Henry v. Paul Piatchek, Darrell Williams, Sr., 578 S.W.3d 374

In January 2010 Delores Henry (grandmother) filed a wrongful-death suit for her grandson Darrell, although his parents (mother Kathryn Love and father Darrell Williams Sr.) were alive and were the proper statutory plaintiffs under §537.080.
The defendants answered and the case proceeded without prior resolution of Henry’s capacity to sue.
While incarcerated, Darrell’s father sent multiple letters to the court and, in May 2011, submitted a handwritten pro se motion to “become a plaintiff” (an attempted motion to intervene) that was neither served on the parties nor accompanied by a pleading as required by Rule 52.12(c).
Henry voluntarily dismissed her suit in April 2014 under Rule 67.02(a) before trial; that dismissal took effect upon filing. The three-year statute of limitations had run by that time.
More than a year after the voluntary dismissal, Williams (now with counsel) filed a Rule 74.06(b)(5) motion to set aside the dismissal and to intervene, arguing he had timely sought intervention and thus should be treated as a party. The trial court overruled the motion; the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Williams)	Defendant's Argument (Respondents / Court)	Held
Whether a person who attempted to intervene but was never made a party may file a Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside a dismissal	Williams: his pro se motion to join/ intervene was timely before dismissal; as a parent he had statutory right to be the plaintiff and Rule 52.12(a) allowed intervention as of right, so he should be treated as a party and relief should be granted	Respondents/Court: Williams never complied with Rule 52.12(c) (no service, no accompanying pleading), so he never became a party; Rule 74.06(b) is limited to parties and cannot be invoked by non-parties	Held: Affirmed. Non-parties cannot invoke Rule 74.06(b); Williams never became a party due to failure to comply with intervention rules, so he could not seek to set aside the voluntary dismissal
Whether a voluntary dismissal under Rule 67.02(a) is a “judgment or order” subject to relief under Rule 74.06(b)	Williams: sought relief treating the dismissal as a final disposition that could be set aside so his claim could proceed	Respondents/Court: A Rule 67.02(a) voluntary dismissal takes effect upon filing and is not a final judgment; it operates as if the suit was never brought	Held: The voluntary dismissal was not a judgment or order from which Rule 74.06 relief could be sought; there was nothing for the court to set aside

State ex rel. Wolfner v. Dalton, 955 S.W.2d 928 (Mo. banc 1997) (would-be intervenors who fail to comply with Rule 52.12(c) and never become parties cannot seek relief under Rule 74.06)
State ex rel. AJKJ, Inc. v. Hellmann, 574 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. banc 2019) (only parties may file authorized after-trial motions; non-party Rule 74.06(b) motions are not authorized)
State ex rel. Fisher v. McKenzie, 754 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. banc 1988) (a voluntary dismissal operates as if the suit had never been brought; subsequent steps are a nullity)
State ex rel. Henderson v. Asel, 566 S.W.3d 596 (Mo. banc 2019) (definition of judgment: a judicial order that fully resolves at least one claim and establishes rights and liabilities with respect to that claim)
In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard of review for overruling Rule 74.06(b) motions is abuse of discretion)
Love v. Piatchek, 503 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. App. 2016) (discussing the effect of the grandmother’s lack of statutory standing and suggesting setting aside the dismissal under Rule 74.06(b) as a potential remedy)