506 S.W.3d 400
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Kirk and Rhonda Bregg (tenants) rented a residence and two garages from Tressa Stough (landlord) under separate month-to-month oral agreements; garages used for Kirk’s business.
- Landlord sued in associate circuit court for past-due rent and possession; summons served May 29, 2015, initial court date set June 10, 2015; bench trial set for June 24, 2015.
- At the June 24 trial the Bruggs (pro se) sought to introduce evidence that landlord’s conduct (zoning/maintenance affecting commercial use) justified withholding rent; the court excluded that evidence because no written affirmative defenses/counterclaims had been filed by the return date.
- The Bruggs requested a continuance for counsel (denied at trial); the court entered judgment for landlord for unpaid rent and possession.
- After judgment counsel entered for the Bruggs and moved for new trial / to set aside judgment and allow counterclaims; the trial court denied relief. Bruggs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stough) | Defendant's Argument (Bregg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapter 535 summary rent-and-possession procedure violated tenants’ due process by inadequate notice / too little time between summons and hearing | Statutory procedure provides adequate notice for limited issues of rent and possession and requires setting first available date; summary process is appropriate | Summons form failed to explain required steps (need to file written affirmative defenses/counterclaims) and the short statutory interval denied time to prepare | No due process violation; 12 days here was sufficient and due process does not require summons to recite procedural steps to preserve affirmative defenses |
| Whether trial court erred by excluding evidence showing landlord’s breach (justifying withholding rent) because tenants had not filed written affirmative defenses/counterclaims | Evidence beyond denial of nonpayment is an affirmative defense that must be pled in writing by the return date under associate circuit rules; failure to plead waives the defense | Evidence negated landlord’s element (tenants’ obligation to pay) and thus should be admissible even without written pleading | Court did not err; theory was an affirmative defense requiring written pleading and tenants waived it by not filing; exclusion was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (summary eviction procedures with short notice upheld where tenants know relevant facts and can defend)
- Ellsworth Breihan Bldg. Co. v. Teha Inc., 48 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (describing limited scope of rent-and-possession actions)
- Becker Glove Int’l, Inc. v. Jack Dubinsky & Sons, 41 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. banc 2001) (compulsory counterclaim rule does not apply to associate circuit rent-and-possession actions)
- Dieser v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. banc 2016) (definition and effect of affirmative defenses)