State ex rel. Koster v. Cain
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1438
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- State sought garnishment against Law Firm to collect on a Consent Judgment imposing a $168,078.85 lien, limited to 50% of Cain's net recovery from the Commission.
- Consent Judgment was amended by an addendum to cap collection to the net proceeds (or zero if Cain recovered nothing).
- Arbitration produced Cain’s net settlement amount; State sought 50% of that net, i.e., $42,109.09, via garnishment in 2011.
- Trial court quashed the garnishment, ruling it targeted the Contempt Judgment and that the Contempt Judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and that interrogatories violated attorney‑client privilege.
- State appeals, arguing garnishment sought enforcement of the Consent Judgment (valid and definite) and that the privilege issue was wrongly resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the garnishment sought to enforce the Consent Judgment or the Contempt Judgment | Cain (State) contends garnishment was for Contempt Judgment. | Law Firm and Cain contend garnishment targeted Contempt Judgment and violated privilege. | Garnishment sought to enforce the Consent Judgment. |
| Whether the Contempt Judgment was properly treated as enforceable or void | State argues Contempt Judgment could be enforced. | Cain/Law Firm argue Contempt Judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction. | Contempt Judgment not final; reversal avoids deciding its validity. |
| Whether the garnishment interrogatories violate the attorney‑client privilege | Interrogatories seek only non‑privileged information about funds and ownership. | Interrogatories could compel disclosure of privileged fee arrangements or client instructions. | Interrogatories do not automatically privilege; no blanket exemption; remand to require verified answers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orem v. Orem, 149 S.W.3d 589 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (garnishment in aid of execution; final judgment prerequisite; specifies collection mechanics)
- Hopkins v. Hopkins, 626 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.App. E.D.1981) (money judgment must be definite; amount may be ascertainable from record)
- Traxel v. Traxel, 295 S.W.3d 215 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (definiteness requirement for judgments; external proof not needed if record discloses amount)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. banc 2004) (burden to prove attorney‑client privilege; case‑by‑case basis)
- Behrendt v. Neill, 387 S.W.3d 727 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (attorney‑client privilege; questions reviewed de novo; case‑specific analysis required)