Kieffer v. Icaza
376 S.W.3d 653
Mo.2012Background
- In July 1998, Kieffer and the Icazas entered into a lease for a residence to be used by Jennifer Icaza.
- On September 16, 2005, Kieffer sued for breach of contract and property damage; Icazas counterclaimed.
- A bench trial was set for February 13, 2008; Kieffer moved for jury trial on February 8, 2008, which the court denied.
- May 29, 2008 judgment favored the Icazas on Kieffer’s petition and favored Kieffer on the Icazas’ counterclaim; the judgment was later deemed void on appeal and set aside.
- On March 3, 2010, a new judgment was entered denying jury trial and again favoring the Icazas on Kieffer’s petition and the counterclaim; this appeal follows and the judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case applicability | Kieffer contends law of the case bars her first five points. | Icazas contend the doctrine applies and precludes relitigation. | Law of the case does not apply; merits considered. |
| Rule 51.05(e) change of judge reassignment | Steltzer prevented stipulation, did not consult Mullen, and Dowd presided improperly. | No merit; Mullen consented and Dowd acted as presiding judge per rule. | Reassignment proper; point denied. |
| Local Rule 6.1.1.1 and jury trial timing | Division 27 should have the case per jury-trial rule placement. | There was no valid jury demand; waiver occurred under statute and rule. | Point denied; rule did not require Division 29. |
| Discovery sanctions jurisdiction under Rule 32.6 | Rule 32.6(1) governs sanction motion procedure and questioned jurisdiction. | Rule 32.6(1) is procedural; does not limit jurisdiction; court retains discretion. | Point denied; court had jurisdiction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for breach and damages | Kieffer offered damages and breach evidence; trial misled by lack of evidence. | Icazas presented detailed evidence of unauthorized entry; Kieffer failed to prove damages. | Point denied; substantial evidence supports verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2000) (law of the case doctrine governs successive appeals)
- Century Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. CNA/Transportation Ins. Co., 87 S.W.3d 408 (Mo.App.2002) (reversal can render prior judgment void for law-of-the-case purposes)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for appellate review of judgments)
- United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370 (8th Cir.1995) (law of the case doctrine and discretion in appellate review)
- State v. Graham, 13 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. banc 2000) (law of the case and issue preservation principles)