363 S.W.3d 397
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mosby filed a petition to quiet title to real property located at 4041 Wabash Ave., KC, Mo., against West-Anderson and others.
- West-Anderson, pro se, answered with affirmative defenses and later filed an answer to the first amended petition.
- West-Anderson removed the case to federal court in Oct. 2007, arguing lack of diversity and the Gospel Temple Church as a necessary party.
- Federal court ordered Gospel Temple Church to be added; Mosby amended the federal complaint on May 14, 2009, adding the church.
- Remand to state court in Oct. 2009 occurred after diversity was destroyed by the church’s addition; West-Anderson did not answer the federal complaint as part of the state court file.
- Following remand, West-Anderson attended a status hearing she refused to attend, Mosby moved for default, and a hearing was held July 30, 2010; West-Anderson did not appear.
- On Aug. 31, 2010, the circuit court entered a default judgment for Mosby awarding $10,000 actual damages and $30,000 punitive damages.
- Nov. 29, 2010, West-Anderson moved to set aside the default judgment; the motion was overruled; she timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was improper because West-Anderson had timely responsive pleadings. | Mosby argues West-Anderson had timely answers and defenses. | West-Anderson contends she did plead timely in state court. | Yes; the default was improper because timely pleadings existed. |
| Whether failing to respond to the federal complaint can ground a state-court default judgment. | Mosby treats nonresponse to the federal complaint as ground for default. | West-Anderson asserts the federal complaint was not part of the state-filed pleadings. | Yes; error to base default on nonfiled federal pleading since not in state file. |
| Whether failure to appear at the default hearing can ground a default judgment when a responsive pleading exists. | Mosby argues absence supports default. | West-Anderson had filed responsive pleadings, so failure to appear does not default. | No; failure to appear is not grounds for default where a responsive pleading exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeman v. Beeman, 296 S.W.3d 514 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (default judgments disfavored; need meritorious defense and good cause under Rule 74.05(d) when setting aside)
- Everest Reinsurance Co. v. Kerr, 253 S.W.3d 100 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (timeliness of answers; if timely answer exists, Rule 74.05(d) test inapplicable)
- Amon v. Bailey, 13 S.W.3d 305 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (timely answer negates default when default judgment improperly entered)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 925 S.W.2d 218 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (failure to appear is not by itself sufficient for default if responsive pleading exists)
- Craig v. Missouri Department of Health, 80 S.W.3d 457 (Mo.banc 2002) (remand pleadings not always fatal to state court ruling; Rule 55.34(b) governs filing after remand)