405 S.W.3d 582
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff McGee sues City of Pine Lawn for injuries from an assault on City property; petition seeks unspecified damages and medical expenses.
- City failed to answer; default entered June 20, 2011, awarding $500,000 based on “evidence produced and damages shown.”
- City moved to set aside default under Rule 74.05(d), but motion was unverified and unsupported by affidavits or testimony.
- Process server swore Krueger, the City Administrator, accepted service after inquiring who could accept service and providing his business card.
- City argued Krueger was not an authorized recipient under Rule 54.13(b)(4) and later challenged personal jurisdiction; these arguments were not raised below.
- Trial court denied the motion to set aside as to liability; on appeal, court affirms as to liability but reverses as to damages and remands for an evidentiary hearing on damages.
- Court notes the record contains no damages evidence: no affidavits, witnesses, or proven documents, only a handwritten judgment stating damages were awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion court lacked personal jurisdiction over City. | McGee asserts Krueger was authorized to accept service. | City contends Krueger not authorized; service improper. | Denied; no error, City failed to prove lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the damage award is supported by probative evidence. | Damages adequately proven by medical expenses and testimony. | No probative damages evidence; manifest injustice if standing. | Plain error; remand for evidentiary hearing on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Court of 5 Gardens Condo. Ass’n v. 10330 Old Olive, LLC, 326 S.W.3d 834 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (abuses in default-judgment context; need for evidence of damages; preservation guidance)
- Duvall v. Maxey, 249 S.W.3d 216 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008) (remand for damages hearing due to insufficient evidence)
- McCullough v. Commerce Bank, 349 S.W.3d 389 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (preservation and strategy in Rule 74.05/74.06 defenses)
- Kerth v. Polestar Entm’t, 325 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (standard for void judgment analysis on appeal)
- Beckmann v. Miceli Homes, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 533 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) (allow trial court to decide liability and damages in same proceeding)