Pendergrass v. Pendergrass Enterprises, Inc.
367 S.W.3d 680
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pendergrass filed a petition to determine the fair value of his shares as a dissenting shareholder (May 27, 2011).
- Pendergrass Enterprises moved to dismiss (October 28, 2011) for failure to comply with section 351.405 and to demand payment of fair value.
- Two supporting letters were not deposited with the appellate court or included in the record.
- At the November 10, 2011 hearing, no evidence was submitted and the court granted judgment for Pendergrass Enterprises based on the statutory requirement.
- The record on appeal was incomplete because the two letters were not provided, leading to dismissal for lack of a complete record.
- The court emphasized that self-represented litigants face the same rules as attorneys and warned that an incomplete record prevents review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide required written demand invalidates the petition | Pendergrass argues the petition should be reviewable despite missing letters. | Pendergrass Enterprises contends the record shows failure to meet §351.405 requirements. | Dismissed for failure to provide a complete record. |
| Whether the record is sufficient to review the petition on appeal | Record is incomplete; essential documents were not deposited. | Incomplete record prevents meaningful review. | Appeal dismissed due to incomplete record. |
| Whether the court properly applied procedural rules to a self-represented litigant | No special treatment requested for self-represented litigant. | Rules apply equally to self-represented litigants. | No reviewable issues due to missing documents; record incomplete. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 222 S.W.3d 335 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (duty to provide full and complete record on appeal)
- D.B. v. D.H., 348 S.W.3d 179 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (self-represented litigants bound by same rules as attorneys)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 320 S.W.3d 725 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (no preferential treatment for non-lawyers; need complete record)
- Elkins v. Elkins, 257 S.W.3d 617 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (implications of fairness and judicial impartiality in records)