FORSYTH FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC v. Hayes
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1085
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- FFG, as assignee of First National Bank of Omaha (Visa/MasterCard), filed a breach of contract petition against Hayes in Clay County Circuit Court on November 28, 2005.
- The petition alleged a credit card balance of $1,963.78, plus attorneys' fees and interest, and attached a cardholder agreement naming First National Bank of Marin as a party.
- Hayes was served on December 2, 2005, did not answer, and a default judgment was entered awarding damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees, with post-judgment interest at 23.990%.
- In March 2010, FFG commenced garnishment against Hayes’ employer.
- Hayes moved under Rule 74.06(b) to set aside the default judgment, arguing lack of standing/pleading defects and improper interest/fees; the trial court denied the motion on July 16, 2010.
- The Western District affirmed, holding the judgment was not void and the due-process requirements were not violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment is void for lack of standing/pleading against an assignee. | Hayes contends FFG lacked standing to sue as assignee of the cardholder agreement with a different named bank. | Hayes asserts the petition failed to establish privity or authority between FFG and Hayes under the agreement. | No; judgment not void for lack of standing. |
| Whether the award of attorneys' fees and interest exceeded contractual/statutory authority. | FFG seeks fees and interest as provided by the contract and applicable law. | Hayes argues there was no contract basis or statutory rate authority for such awards. | No; the award did not render the judgment void. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Koster v. Walls, 313 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. 2010) (void judgments are limited to due-process deficiencies)
- Franken v. Franken, 191 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. 2006) (void-judgment standard under Rule 74.06(b)(4))
- Baxi v. United Technologies Automotive, 122 S.W.3d 92 (Mo. App. 2003) (voidness narrowly construed; finality of judgments)
- O'Hare v. Permenter, 113 S.W.3d 287 (Mo. App. 2003) (de novo review for void judgments)
- Platt v. Platt, 815 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. App. 1991) (due-process concerns in void judgments)
- Walls v. State, 313 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. 2010) (due-process standards for void judgments)
- Franks v. Franken, 183 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. Banc 2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in Rule 74.06(b) appeals)