Johnson v. March
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 537
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Father, pro se, challenges an FSD order requiring child support and health insurance for his son, born 2003.
- FSD issued a notice and finding of financial responsibility on May 11, 2005; mailed Aug 26, 2005.
- Administrative hearing on Jan 23, 2006; 2006 Order issued April 3, 2006 obligating $532/month; mailed April 5, 2006.
- Trial court docketed the 2006 Order May 2, 2006; order became final May 5, 2006 per 536.110.1.
- Father filed a motion to vacate on Sep 15, 2010; hearings held in 2011; motions denied; Father appeals pro se.
- Key issues concern validity of the 2006 Order, tribunal authority, personal jurisdiction, and handling of FSD documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 2006 Order void due to due process or bias? | March argues the order is void from bias and misstatement of income. | Norton/Clayton hold the judgment is not void for errors or perjury absent due process issues. | Not void; no due‑process violation found; errors alone do not void. |
| Did the trial court lack authority to enforce the 2006 Order due to docketing timing? | March contends docketing before 30 days violated process and deprived review. | Docketing within statutory framework preserved authority; review period began at mailing. | No authority defect; filing/docketing complied with statutes; review period existed. |
| Did the trial court lack personal jurisdiction over Father due to service concerns? | March asserts improper service since signature on certificate of service is illegible. | Mailing to last known address constitutes service; receipt presumed; illegible signature not fatal. | Personal jurisdiction established; service presumed proper. |
| Was the trial court required to strike FSD documents or reconsider the January 31, 2011 order based on late production? | March claims late production prejudiced him and documents should have been struck. | Court did not abuse discovery control; any prejudice remedied at the April 11, 2011 hearing. | No abuse of discretion; denial of motion to reconsider affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forsyth Fin. Group, LLC v. Hayes, 351 S.W.3d 738 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (void-judgment standard narrow; due process limits)
- Vincel v. Vincel, 439 S.W.2d 227 (Mo.App.1969) (perjury arguments do not void a final judgment)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo.banc 2005) (bias must arise from extrajudicial source)
- Hilburn v. Staeden, 91 S.W.3d 607 (Mo.banc 2002) (statutory review process for administrative orders)
- Weidner v. Anderson, 174 S.W.3d 672 (Mo.App. S.D.2005) (mail service presumed received)
- Platt v. Platt, 815 S.W.2d 82 (Mo.App. E.D.1991) (finality and voidness clarified)
- Baxi v. United Techs. Auto. Corp., 122 S.W.3d 92 (Mo.App. E.D.2003) (due process and void judgment standards)
- Zimmer v. Fisher, 171 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App. E.D.2005) (trial court discretion in discovery remedies)
- Hayes v. Porter, 30 S.W.3d 845 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (modification and review avenues after FSD orders)
- State ex rel. Hilburn v. Staeden, 91 S.W.3d 607 (Mo.banc 2002) (administrative order safeguards and judicial review)