399 S.W.3d 456
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellants Greasel Conversions, Inc. and Charles Anderson appeal a judgment that set aside an earlier March 15, 2012 default-like judgment entered against Massa, Massa, LLC, and MGE.
- The March 15 judgment was entered after a hearing on Appellants’ motion for a default judgment following sanctions for discovery abuse; Respondents were not in default but had appearances and motions filed.
- The court initially entered the March 15 judgment after striking Respondents’ pleadings as a Rule 61.01 sanction and ordered damages and a laptop return.
- Respondents later sought relief under Rule 74.05 or, alternatively, Rule 74.06, arguing lack of notice to Respondents made the March 15 judgment irregular.
- The trial court granted relief by a conditional order, then set aside the March 15 judgment on the ground that Respondents did not receive notice of the March 15 hearing, and later entered the order as a judgment setting aside the judgment.
- Appellants appeal, asserting improper reliance on excusable neglect and that the judgment should not have been set aside; the appellate court affirms, noting actual notice was not shown and due process was violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 74.05(d) applies to the March 15 judgment. | Greasel argues the March 15 judgment was a merits/default judgment and not subject to Rule 74.05(d). | Respondents contend the judgment was a sanctions/merits ruling; Rule 74.05(d) inapplicable. | Rule 74.05(d) does not apply; the judgment was entered on the merits as a sanctions-based judgment. |
| Whether the March 15 judgment was irregular due to lack of notice and thus subject to relief under Rule 74.06. | Greasel contests the irregularity due to no notice to Respondents. | Respondents did not receive proper notice; relief under Rule 74.06 is appropriate. | Yes; lack of notice renders the judgment irregular and subject to relief under Rule 74.06. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breckenridge Material Co. v. Enloe, 194 S.W.3d 915 (Mo.App.2006) (due-process considerations require notice when setting aside a judgment not entered by default)
- Lambert v. Holbert, 172 S.W.3d 894 (Mo.App.2005) (notice required to support setting aside a judgment for irregularity)
- Midwest Grain and Barge Co. v. Poeppelmeyer, 295 S.W.3d 211 (Mo.App.2009) (courts must ensure due process in sanctions and trial-setting notices)
- Davis v. Chatter, Inc., 270 S.W.3d 471 (Mo.App.2008) (sanctions-based judgments and the effect of striking pleadings)