535 S.W.3d 808
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Northeast Public Sewer District condemned an easement on William Feucht’s land; initial award $570, Feucht sought increased damages and a jury trial and requested $11,500.
- Feucht testified at trial about before-and-after property value and his qualifications, including that he had been an account clerk in the U.S. Marine Corps and received a meritorious promotion related to fiscal work.
- Appellant’s counsel made a vague pretrial comment about objection to an exhibit referring to Feucht’s Marine service, but made no contemporaneous objection to Feucht’s oral testimony and later said “no objection” when the exhibit was offered.
- The jury awarded Feucht $11,500; Appellant appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting testimony regarding Feucht’s military service as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
- The appellate court found the objection at trial was not sufficiently specific and was waived, and no motion for new trial was filed, so the issue was not preserved; alternatively, the court held the testimony was relevant to Feucht’s qualifications to give valuation testimony.
- The court concluded the appeal was frivolous, assessed $350 in damages against Appellant’s counsel (The Sweeney Law Firm) to be paid to Feucht, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about Feucht’s military service | Feucht: testimony showed qualifications to value property (accounting experience in Marines) | Sewer District: testimony was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; should have been excluded | Trial objection was not preserved (waiver); even on merits, testimony was admissible as probative of qualifications; no prejudicial imbalance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Witt, 487 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (affirmative “no objection” waives appellate review)
- Host v. BNSF Ry. Co., 460 S.W.3d 87 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (objection to exhibit does not preserve challenge to related testimony)
- In re Gianella, 111 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (appellate court may impose sanctions for frivolous appeals)
- Snelling v. Kenny, 491 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (standard and caution for awarding appellate sanctions)
- Nolfo v. Dubin, 861 S.W.2d 136 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (omissions from the record may support inference of bad faith)
- Stiens v. Stiens, 231 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (awarding damages for frivolous appeal where errors were not preserved)
- Ampleman v. Scheweppe, 972 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (sanctions commonly imposed on attorney rather than client)
- Promotional Consultants, Inc. v. Logsdon, 25 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (court may award damages sua sponte for frivolous appeals)