500 S.W.3d 239
Mo.2016Background
- Heartland filed a two-count petition in Jackson County circuit court alleging professional malpractice against Hasty & Associates and Hasty; Count II concerns legal services in Heartland's attempt to become a creditor in a former employee's U.S. bankruptcy in Kansas.
- Hasty moved to dismiss Count II for lack of venue under § 508.010.5, arguing Missouri venue is limited to plaintiff's Missouri residence or defendant's registered agent; no agent/residence in Missouri meant no venue.
- Circuit court dismissed Count II for lack of venue; Heartland sought mandamus/prohibition in this Court; preliminary writ issued and later made permanent.
- This Court explains the difference between jurisdiction and venue and interprets § 508.010.5 to allow venue in any Missouri county where jurisdiction exists, rejecting a nexus-based constraint.
- Court relies on Neville v. Grate to hold that § 508.010.5 does not bar venue in all Missouri counties absent an express statutory restriction; public policy and transfer remedies support venue in Missouri counties where court has jurisdiction.
- Conclusion: where personal and subject matter jurisdiction exist, venue may be proper in any Missouri county absent an express restriction; preliminary writ made permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 508.010.5 permits Missouri venue in any county when injury occurred outside Missouri | Heartland: venue allowed in any Missouri county absent express restriction | Hasty: no Missouri venue without express provision or nexus | Yes; venue is proper in any Missouri county if jurisdiction exists |
| Whether Neville v. Grate governs and supports venue in Missouri counties beyond injury location | Neville controls; statute not limited to Missouri-injury facts | Neville distinguishable; nexus required | Neville applies; statute not intended to bar Missouri venue absent express terms |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to reinstate Count II and make the writ permanent | Mandamus proper to correct improper venue dismissal | Remedy may be limited or different | Yes; mandamus is appropriate and writ affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Neville v. Grate, 443 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. 2014) (venue may be proper in any Missouri county without express statutory prescription)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Mo. State Hwy. & Transp. Comm., 282 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. banc 2009) (court may issue writ to correct improper venue; transfer duty when venue improper)
- State ex rel. Rothermich v. Gallagher, 816 S.W.2d 194 (Mo. banc 1991) (mandamus to reinstate petition; venue framework)
- Lang v. Goldsworthy, 470 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. banc 2015) (contemplation of venue issues; constitutional challenge avoidance)
- State ex rel. Wyeth v. Grady, 262 S.W.3d 216 (Mo. banc 2008) (interstate forum considerations; venue policy)