Reimer v. Hayes
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 574
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Reimer appeals a circuit court summary judgment in Hayes’s favor on tort claims asserted in 2010 seeking fraud and civil conspiracy regarding Hayes’s income.
- The dissolution of Reimer and Hayes’s marriage occurred April 20, 2006, with child support based on Hayes’s stated income of about $75,000.
- In 2007, Reimer settled for $100,000 in exchange for releasing Hayes from undistributed marital assets and Lehigh from related claims.
- Reimer discovered Hayes earned substantial commissions in 2006; she then filed a tort suit alleging fraud and conspiracy in 2010; Hayes moved for summary judgment arguing release barred claims.
- The court granted summary judgment, concluding the tort claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the dissolution judgment; the appeal follows.
- Rule-based analysis on collateral attacks and finality of dissolution judgments guided the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reimer’s tort claims are barred as collateral attack on the dissolution judgment | Reimer argues tort claims survive release of undistributed assets and are not a collateral attack | Hayes contends tort claims attack the dissolution judgment; release bars them | Yes; tort claims barred as collateral attack |
| Whether the release of claims encompasses tort claims | Release covers undistributed marital assets only, not tort claims | Release extends to all claims existing at time of settlement, including tort | Release barred tort claims as collateral attack |
| Whether intrinsic/extrinsic fraud rule limits timely challenging the dissolution judgment | Reimer could pursue fraud claims; timely under Rule 74.06 | Fraud claims were intrinsic and time-barred; collateral attack barred | Intrinsic fraud; not timely to challenge; barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Barry, Inc. v. Falk, 217 S.W.3d 317 (Mo.App.2007) (collateral attack cannot attack a judgment via collateral means)
- Reid v. Steelman, 210 S.W.3d 273 (Mo.App.2006) (finality and collateral attack limits on judgments)
- Essig v. Essig, 921 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App.1996) (Rule 74.06 fraud relief must be within one year; extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud distinction)
- Dahn v. Dahn, 346 S.W.3d 325 (Mo.App.2011) (claim preclusion; issues arising from dissolution may be barred by original judgment)
- Curtis v. Kays, 670 S.W.2d 887 (Mo.App.1984) (fraud elements in set-aside of property settlement align with fraud standards)