Patricia Breckenridge

In this premises liability case, Bob Ratcliff sued Sprint Missouri after allegedly injuring his ankle by stepping into an uncovered 24-by-24-inch opening in a sub-floor of the Truman Building, which a Sprint technician had created while installing phone lines. Ratcliff claimed Sprint negligently failed to barricade, attend, or warn about the hazard, but Sprint countered that the opening was open and obvious, properly attended, and that Ratcliff failed to keep a careful lookout, also presenting evidence of a prior ankle injury and factitious disorder. After a three-week trial, the jury found Sprint zero percent at fault and Ratcliff 100 percent at fault, resulting in judgment for Sprint. On appeal, Ratcliff challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, denial of amendments, and refusal of a protective order to record a medical exam; the court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the verdict, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary matters, and other claims lacked merit.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Roberson, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of misdemeanor third-degree domestic assault against his wife. On appeal, Roberson challenged the constitutionality of the statute allowing bench trials for misdemeanors unless a jury is demanded and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the constitutional issue was not preserved for review because it was not raised before the trial court and the defendant proceeded without objection to the bench trial. The court also determined that the victim's testimony and supporting evidence from deputies provided substantial evidence for the guilty verdict. The trial court's judgment was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Countrywide, as mortgagee under a deed of trust with a union mortgage clause in an Allstate fire insurance policy, could recover proceeds for fire damage that occurred before it foreclosed on the property and purchased it for the full amount of the debt. The trial court ruled for Countrywide based on an independent contract theory from prior precedent, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Countrywide had no remaining insurable interest once the foreclosure satisfied the debt. The core reasoning was that the mortgagee's rights to pre-foreclosure insurance proceeds are limited to the outstanding debt; full satisfaction at foreclosure extinguishes any claim under the policy, regardless of the union clause language protecting against changes in ownership or foreclosure. The court distinguished cases where loss occurred after foreclosure and found that the clause's protection extended only up to the secured amount, not creating a windfall for the new owner.

property

This case involved UMB Bank challenging the City of Kansas City's disallowance of interest expense deductions on its earnings tax returns for 1995-1997, which the City claimed were tied to nontaxable government securities investments and thus not deductible. After UMB paid additional taxes under protest and sued for a refund, the trial court ruled in UMB's favor on remand, finding the expenses were necessary operating costs under the city's tax ordinance. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding relevant expert testimony from the City's audit manager on whether such interest expenses qualify as deductible necessary expenses of operation. The appellate court reasoned that the testimony was directly material to the central factual dispute, the witness was qualified, and its exclusion prevented the City from presenting its core position at trial. The case was remanded for a new trial limited to that issue.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this case, defendants in a medical malpractice lawsuit (relators) petitioned for a writ of prohibition after the trial court vacated its earlier order transferring venue from Jackson County to Livingston County. The Missouri Court of Appeals made the writ absolute, ruling that the trial court lacked authority to vacate the transfer order. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' opposition to the venue transfer motion was filed one day late under Rule 51.045, making the original transfer order valid, and that under Rule 51.13 a court cannot annul a venue transfer without all parties' consent, which was not obtained here.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved the dissolution of a long marriage between Sarah and Joseph Dowell, who had accumulated substantial marital assets through a family farming operation and grass seed business known as J & J Seed. Sarah appealed the trial court's division of property, equal apportionment of significant income tax liabilities between the parties, and denial of her request for maintenance. The trial court had awarded each spouse roughly comparable net property values after a cash equalization payment, split the tax debt, and declined maintenance based on the assets and income available post-division. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in part but reversed and remanded in part.

family lawpropertytaxes

The case involved siblings Roger and Patricia Johnson appealing the dismissal of their wrongful death lawsuit against the driver of a car and the owner of a bicycle after their 12-year-old sister Tammy Salmons was struck and killed while riding the bike. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice because the petition failed to show that the plaintiffs were proper parties under Missouri's wrongful death statute, § 537.080. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Tammy's biological mother remained a class one beneficiary entitled to sue since her parental rights had not been terminated by court order despite her lack of contact, alleged abandonment, and signed consent to termination. The opinion reasoned that the statute creates a strict hierarchy of beneficiaries, and the facts alleged did not demonstrate that the mother was disqualified or that her rights had ended. As a result, the siblings as class two beneficiaries could not maintain the action.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the Public Service Commission and wireless carriers from a circuit court judgment reversing the Commission's rejection of tariffs proposed by small rural telephone companies. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the Commission failed to make sufficient findings of fact as required by §§ 386.420 and 536.090, and remanded the case for the Commission to enter proper findings and conclusions of law. The court reasoned that the Commission's findings were nonexistent or conclusory, consisting only of a statement that no facts were in dispute and that all positions had been considered, which provided no factual basis for its decision that the tariffs were unlawful because they would allow switched access charges for local traffic. Without adequate separate findings of fact, the court could not conduct meaningful judicial review of whether the decision was lawful and reasonable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Paula Keefhaver sued the Weeses for fraudulent misrepresentation after purchasing their home, alleging that the sellers' disclosure statement failed to adequately reveal known defects with the roof, basement, and deck. The trial court granted the Weeses' motion for directed verdict at the close of Keefhaver's evidence, finding the disclosures sufficient and that Keefhaver lacked a right to rely on the representations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court misapplied the law because the defects were latent, the sellers had superior knowledge, and Keefhaver was entitled to rely on the disclosures without conducting her own inspection. The opinion also clarified that in a bench trial, a motion for judgment on the merits under Rule 73.01(b) is the appropriate vehicle rather than a directed verdict.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim filed by Tracey Farmer-Cummings against Personnel Pool of Platte County (her employer) and Future Foam, Inc. (her statutory employer), seeking benefits for an occupational respiratory disease she developed while cutting and gluing foam products. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarded her permanent partial disability benefits totaling $36,265.60 plus future medical benefits, but denied past medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits, while granting the employer a subrogation credit against a third-party medical malpractice settlement. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of permanent partial rather than total disability and the subrogation interest, but reversed the denial of past medical benefits and remanded for a determination of the proper amount. The court reasoned that substantial evidence supported the Commission's disability assessment and credibility determinations, that the employer was entitled to subrogation under Missouri statute to avoid double recovery, and that the Commission had erred in denying reimbursement for past medical expenses.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Paula Diane Coon suing Drs. William J. Dryden and C.K. Fotopoulos for medical malpractice after a June 1986 surgery failed to perform the total hysterectomy she sought to address her chronic pelvic condition, resulting in continued symptoms and a later corrective procedure; she also claimed lack of informed consent regarding alternatives. Following a jury verdict awarding her $100,000, the doctors appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of causation and standard of care, improper nunc pro tunc judgment, and flawed jury instructions. The appellate court reversed the judgment, directing entry of JNOV for Dr. Fotopoulos because no submissible case was made on the standard of care applicable to an assisting surgeon, and ordering a new trial for Dr. Dryden because Instructions 8 and 9 assumed disputed facts about her condition and improperly gave the jury a roving commission. The core reasoning centered on evidentiary failures to support liability and instructional errors that removed key disputed issues from proper jury consideration.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the dissolution of Jim and Lois Rawlings' marriage, including the division of their property and debts under Missouri law. The trial court awarded each party their own debts, including over $66,000 in credit card debt to Mr. Rawlings as nonmarital, based on the couple's practice of keeping separate finances, and divided the marital estate accordingly. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because section 452.330 requires a valid written agreement to exclude debts incurred during marriage from the marital estate, and no such written agreement existed here. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine whether the debts were marital and to divide them and the marital property justly after considering all relevant factors.

family lawproperty

The case involved the Director of Revenue's appeal of a trial court decision that set aside the revocation of Clinton Wilson's driving privileges after he was stopped for suspected driving under the influence. Officers arrested Wilson following failed field sobriety tests, a breath test showing zero blood alcohol, and his repeated failure to provide a requested urine sample despite being advised of implied consent warnings. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the uncontroverted evidence satisfied the three statutory elements under section 577.041: Wilson's arrest, the officers' reasonable grounds to believe he was driving while intoxicated or drugged, and his refusal to submit to chemical testing, thereby supporting reinstatement of the one-year license revocation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Missouri Public Service Commission's orders terminating the Primary Toll Carrier Plan for routing and billing intraLATA long-distance calls in rural areas, as required by the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996's dialing parity rules, and proposing a mechanism to allow small rural telephone companies to achieve revenue neutrality through interim rates and future rate cases. The trial court overturned those orders, and the Commission appealed. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that prior unappealed trial court determinations in related proceedings established the companies' entitlement to revenue neutrality and barred the Commission from relitigating the issue under law of the case and res judicata doctrines, rendering the new mechanism unlawful.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a commercial lease dispute in which tenant George Allen claimed an option to extend his lease with landlord MBT Partners via a second addendum that MBT had modified but Allen never accepted; after MBT sold the building to Tower Properties, Tower sought to end the tenancy and filed an unlawful detainer action when Allen remained past the notice period without paying rent, prompting Allen to counterclaim for breach of contract against both parties. The trial court awarded Tower damages and attorney fees on the detainer claim while ruling against Allen on his counterclaim. On appeal, the court dismissed Allen's claims against MBT as abandoned, granted MBT fees for a frivolous appeal, affirmed the rulings against Allen on the breach claim, reversed the unlawful detainer judgment and the attorney-fee award to Tower (remanding for Tower to replead), and affirmed the denial of fees to MBT on the original claim because the dispute arose from the unaccepted addendum rather than the original lease.

propertyprocedure

Roger Dodd appealed his conviction for sale of a controlled substance under section 195.211 after an undercover officer purchased methamphetamine from Dodd's girlfriend in Dodd's presence at an apartment. Dodd raised six claims of trial error, primarily arguing insufficient evidence that he acted as an accomplice, jury coercion from the hammer instruction, and various procedural and evidentiary rulings. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that Dodd's confirmation of the drug quantity and facilitation of the transaction constituted active participation supporting accomplice liability under section 562.041. The court also determined that Dodd's other points were either not properly preserved for review or did not demonstrate reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved landowners seeking a billboard permit from the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission after rezoning their residential property to commercial use to fund a community park with advertising revenue. The Commission denied the permit under regulation 7 C.S.R. 10-6.040(2)(A), which bars spot zoning solely for outdoor advertising to comply with federal and state highway beautification laws. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landowners, finding the regulation illegal and the denial arbitrary, but the appellate court reversed, upholding the regulation as consistent with statutory authority and determining that the rezoning was invalid spot zoning based on surrounding land uses and planning reports.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

This case is a dissolution of marriage action in which Husband appealed the trial court's division of his military retirement pension, award of $2,500 in attorney's fees to Wife, and decision not to divide Wife's IRA. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court correctly calculated the marital portion of the pension as 25.76% without improperly including the portion previously awarded to Husband's first wife, that the overall allocation of marital assets (resulting in Wife receiving 52% and Husband 48%) was equitable under the relevant factors, and that the attorney's fees award was justified by evidence of Husband's conduct in liquidating joint assets. The court applied the standard of review requiring affirmation unless the judgment was unsupported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, or an abuse of discretion in property division.

family lawproperty

This case involved Thomas Edward Griffin, Jr.'s appeal of a trial court judgment dissolving his marriage to Marilyn Sue Griffin, specifically challenging the division of marital property and an award of $1300 monthly maintenance to Wife. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the property division, which allocated approximately 76% to Wife and 24% to Husband, after applying statutory factors including each spouse's economic circumstances, contributions as homemaker, and conduct during the marriage. The court reversed the maintenance award and remanded for reconsideration, finding that the amount exceeded Husband's ability to pay given his net monthly income of $2186 and essential expenses, which would leave him unable to meet his own needs. The opinion emphasized that while a just division need not be equal and maintenance requires balancing need against ability to pay, the trial court's maintenance determination was against the weight of the evidence on the ability-to-pay factor.

family lawproperty

In Van Natter v. Van Natter, a husband appealed a trial court judgment dissolving his long-term marriage, awarding his wife $450 monthly maintenance, and dividing marital assets including a home, retirement accounts, and household goods. The appellate court affirmed the maintenance award, finding it supported by the wife's limited earning capacity from part-time minimum-wage work, her reasonable needs, the couple's traditional roles during the marriage, and the husband's higher income history, while noting the trial court's broad discretion under Missouri statutes and that misconduct was only one balanced factor among others like marriage duration and earning disparity. The court also upheld the overall property division as within discretion but remanded for orders to ensure the husband could actually obtain the household items valued at $3670 that had been awarded to him, as they remained in the wife's possession. The topics are family law and property.

family lawproperty