Unifund CCR Partners v. Kinnamon, 384 S.W.3d 703

Unifund CCR Partners is a Missouri general partnership that filed three debt-collection suits in the Cass County associate circuit court in 2005–2006.
Two suits were filed against Patsy Kinnamon and one against Michael Hawkins; none named Unifund’s partners or otherwise identified the partnership as plaintiff.
After service and the respondents’ failures to plead, the circuit court entered default judgments in 2005–2006.
In December 2010, respondents moved to vacate arguing Unifund lacked capacity to sue in its firm name; the circuit court granted the motions and voided the judgments at inception.
The Missouri Court of Appeals consolidated and reversed, holding the defects were waivable capacity issues, not jurisdictional standing, so the judgments were not void and could not be vacated under Rule 74.06.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether capacity to sue (vs. standing) renders the judgments void.	Unifund argues capacity to sue, not standing, governs; waivable.	Respondents contend lack of capacity to sue in firm name voids judgments.	Capacity, not standing, is at issue and is waivable; judgments not void.
Whether the appointing of all partners is required to sue as a partnership.	Unifund lacked individual partner names; capacity to sue was the issue.	All partners must be named may invalidate capacity.	Missouri aggregates theory means capacity without all partners named is waivable.
Whether a default judgment can be vacated after years based on capacity without jurisdictional defect.	Rule 74.06(b)(4) void-judgment standard applies; waivable.	Delay to vacate prevented timely relief under Rule 74.05(d).	Void-judgment exception applies but is waived; not void here.
Whether the proper distinction between capacity and standing affects the finality of judgments.	City of Wellston supports capacity-not-standing distinction.	Respondents relied on standing to challenge judgments.	Wellston supports capacity analysis; judgments not void; reversal appropriate.

City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, Inc., 203 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2006) (distinguishes capacity to sue from standing; capacity may be waived)
Fowler & Wild v. Williams, 62 Mo. 403 (Mo. 1876) (waived defects in suit brought by a firm; judgments not void if not timely raised)
Sho-Me Power Corp. v. Board of Public Works of Rolla, 244 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. banc 1951) (prosecution of action by board in wrong name did not render judgment void; required substitution to maintain benefits)
Sarasohn & Co. v. Prestige Hotels Corp., 945 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. App. E.D.1997) (treated lack of standing in partnership context; distinguished as capacity issue in Wellston lineage)
ADP Dealer Services Group v. Carroll Motor Co., 195 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (discusses capacity-to-sue issue; not standing; preserved timely under rules)
Korte Trucking Co. v. Broadway Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 877 S.W.2d 218 (Mo. App. E.D.1994) (capacity to sue; timely raised; not supportive of standing as jurisdictional)
McClain v. Buechner, 776 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. App. E.D.1989) (cited regarding pleading deficiencies in capacity context)
Dakin v. Greer, 685 S.W.2d 276 (Mo. App. W.D.1985) (capacity/defect issue discussed in capacity context)
Fowler & Wild v. Williams (additional reference), 62 Mo. 403 () (see above)