Maskill v. Cummins
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 439
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cummins and Maskill began dating in 2000 and living together in 2001; they owned the 8306 NW Forest Drive property as joint tenants with right of survivorship after a 2004 deed.
- Maskill financed the property, paid the mortgage, taxes, and improvements, and later filed for partition; Cummins moved out in 2010 after a breakup.
- In 2010 Cummins borrowed $20,000 from Maskill; the loan was secured by a note and security agreement; the relationship ended in July 2010.
- Trial court held partition with sale; it found no donative intent in the conveyance or in ongoing payments, ordered sale, and allocated sale proceeds 87% to Maskill and 13% to Cummins after debts and costs.
- Separate judgment on the promissory note in favor of Maskill against Cummins was entered; Cummins challenged only the partition judgment on appeal.
- Cassell—default procedural posture: Cummins appealed pro se; Rule 84.04 briefing deficiencies led to dismissal considerations, but the court reviewed the merits ex gratia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donative intent and sharing of proceeds | Cummins argues donative intent created unequal ownership in her favor. | Maskill argues unequal contributions rebut the presumption of equal ownership. | Supported; unequal contributions rebut presumption; final award not against weight of evidence. |
| Appellate jurisdiction and finality of judgment | Cummins challenges the partition judgment as final and appealable. | Maskill contends certain challenges are premature or outside this appeal's scope. | Partial jurisdiction; some issues premature; finality requires distribution of sale proceeds. |
| Rule 84.04 briefing deficiencies and review scope | Cummins's amended brief complies with Rule 84.04. | Deficiencies warrant dismissal or limited ex gratia review. | Court reviews on the merits ex gratia; motion to strike/dismiss denied for merits review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biersmith v. Curry Ass’n Mgmt., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 84 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (mandatory briefing rules; dismissal for noncompliance default)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reversing partition judgments)
- Felderman v. Zweifel, 346 S.W.3d 386 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (presumption of equal ownership rebuttable by unequal contributions)
- Hoit v. Rankin, 320 S.W.3d 761 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (evidence of relationship relevant to donative intent but not dispositive)
- Polk v. Essen, 249 S.W.3d 914 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (jurisdiction in partition appeals under §512.020)
- Schrader v. Quik-Trip Corp., 292 S.W.3d 453 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (notice of appeal limits review to identified judgment)