Coburn v. Kramer & Frank, P.C.

Decision Date09 March 2021
Docket NumberNo. ED 108948,ED 108948
Citation627 S.W.3d 18
Parties Karen COBURN, Appellant, v. KRAMER & FRANK, P.C., Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

FOR APPELLANT: David T. Butsch, Christopher E. Roberts, Butsch Roberts & Associates, LLC, 231South Bemiston, Suite 260, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, 521 West Main Street, Suite 300, Belleville, IL 62220.

AMICUS CURIAE: Stephen J. Barber, Miller & Steeno, P.C., 11970 Borman Drive, Suite 250, St. Louis, Missouri 63146.

Kelly C. Broniec, Judge

Karen Coburn ("Coburn" or "Appellant") appeals the circuit court's judgment granting Kramer & Frank, P.C.’s ("Kramer & Frank" or "Respondent") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in granting Respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because no order specifically appointing the special process server who served her with the summons and petition in the underlying collection lawsuit was entered by the circuit court or the circuit clerk, and thus, the default judgment entered against her in the underlying collection lawsuit was void as a matter of law for lack of personal jurisdiction. Appellant also argues that she has stated claims for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and for unjust enrichment.

We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural BackgroundCoburn's Class Action Lawsuit against Kramer & Frank

On May 6, 2019, Coburn commenced this lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis by filing her two-count Class Action Petition against Kramer & Frank, a "collection law firm" in Missouri (the "Class Action Case"). On behalf of herself and a group of similarly-situated individuals, Coburn asserts violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ( § 407.010 1 et seq. ) (the "MMPA") and a claim for unjust enrichment arising from Kramer & Frank's alleged "misuse of court process to obtain default judgments against Coburn and over 100 putative class members."

At the core of her MMPA and unjust enrichment claims, Coburn alleges that Kramer & Frank, on behalf of its clients, obtained default judgments in certain collection lawsuits without first obtaining personal jurisdiction because the person who served her (and the other putative class plaintiffs) in these lawsuits was not properly appointed by the circuit court or the court clerk to serve process "as required by law," rendering the judgments void.2 Specifically, in her MMPA claim, Coburn alleges that Kramer & Frank "engaged in deceptive and/or unfair practices ... by taking default judgments against Coburn and the putative class members" in that "Kramer & Frank had not acquired personal jurisdiction over Coburn and the putative class members." In her unjust enrichment claim, she similarly alleges that "[i]t would be unjust to allow Kramer & Frank to retain the benefit of the default judgments and/or monies collected after said judgments were entered from Coburn and the putative class members because it received these benefits under the guise that Missouri courts had personal jurisdiction over Coburn and the putative class members when personal jurisdiction did not exist."

On these grounds, the Class Action Petition seeks class certification and that Coburn be appointed as class representative, as well as requests all available damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. More importantly, in both her MMPA and unjust enrichment claims, Coburn also requests the following specific relief: "[A]n order or judgment declaring that the judgments entered against Karen Coburn and the class members are void as a matter of law and ordering Kramer & Frank to set aside all such judgments."3

The Underlying Collection Lawsuit4

On April 14, 2014, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of its client Metropolitan Sewer District ("MSD"), commenced the underlying collection lawsuit against Coburn in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Associate Division (the "Collection Case"). In the Collection Case, MSD alleged that Coburn owed it a debt of $571.80 for overdue wastewater and stormwater charges levied pursuant to MSD Ordinances 13405 and 13466.

On April 14, 2014, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of MSD, filed a request to appoint Amy Post ("Post") as special process server in the Collection Case (the "SPS Request").5 The SPS Request appears to be the only such request filed in the Collection Case, and thus, it does not appear that MSD requested the appointment of anyone other than Post as special process server.

Pursuant to the Local Rule 14.16 , "[a]ny person appointed by the Court or the Circuit Clerk to serve process must have a license issued pursuant to this rule to serve process." Furthermore, "[t]he Sheriff of the City of St. Louis shall maintain a list of persons licensed to serve process pursuant to this rule, and shall make such list available to litigants upon request." Local Rule 14.4. In addition, the Local Rule regarding applications to become a special process server provides as follows: "Applications for the appointment of a special process server shall be made on forms available in the offices of the Sheriff and Circuit Clerk. Orders [a]ppointing special process servers may list more than one licensed server as alternatives." Local Rule 14.9. Although the record does not contain conclusive evidence in this regard, it appears that Post was on the list of licensed process servers maintained by the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis at the time MSD filed the SPS Request in the Collection Case.

Although the SPS Request contained a signature line for the trial judge to sign, no signed copy of the same appears in the court's file in the Collection Case. However, a docket entry was entered in the Collection Case on April 14, 2014, the same date the SPS Request was filed, which reflects that "Summons 3534" was issued for Coburn. The Circuit Clerk of the City of St. Louis at the time, M. Jane Schweitzer, thereafter issued a signed summons to Coburn in the Collection Case, dated April 21, 2014 (the "Summons"). Although the Summons did not expressly include Post's name therein, it did say "SPECIAL" next to Coburn's name. The Summons directed Coburn to appear and answer the petition on May 13, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

The record reflects and there does not appear to be any dispute that on April 28, 2014, Post served a copy of the Summons and the petition in the Collection Case on Coburn by leaving a copy of the same with her son (who was over the age of 15) at the address stated on the Summons. On May 5, 2014, MSD filed a return of service with the Circuit Court, which was signed by Post and notarized. Coburn does not contest that she received actual notice of the Summons and petition in the Collection Case.

The record reflects and there also does not appear to be any dispute that Coburn did not appear on May 13, 2014, or file a responsive pleading in the Collection Case. Thus, MSD, through its attorney, Kramer & Frank, obtained a default judgment against Coburn (the "Default Judgment"). On May 28, 2014, Kramer & Frank filed a Transcript of Judgment in the Collection Case on behalf of MSD, which reflected a principal amount of $513.57, attorney fees of $85.77, and court costs of $148.00, for a total amount of $747.34.

The record reflects and there does not appear to be any dispute that after the Default Judgment was entered and the Transcript of Judgment was filed in the Collection Case, Coburn paid "over $500.00" to Kramer & Frank to satisfy the Default Judgment. The record does not contain any evidence that Kramer & Frank engaged in any other post-judgment collection activity with respect to Coburn. On February 4, 2015, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of MSD, filed a satisfaction of judgment, which confirmed that the Default Judgment had been satisfied.7

Kramer & Frank's Answer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Class Action Case

On July 15, 2019, Kramer & Frank timely filed its answer to the Class Action Petition, which denied any liability to Coburn and asserted several affirmative defenses thereto.

On September 19, 2019, Kramer & Frank filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and supporting memorandum, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the pleadings and the undisputed facts. Specifically, Kramer & Frank argued that Coburn cannot collaterally attack the Default Judgment because she is estopped from doing so in that she has satisfied it, thereby recognizing the validity of the underlying debt and Default Judgment, which renders the Class Action Case moot. Kramer & Frank also argued that the underlying premise of Coburn's claims—that neither the circuit court nor the circuit clerk approved the appointment of Post—is false and fails as a matter of law. Finally, Kramer & Frank argued that the Class Action Petition fails to state a valid claim under the MMPA or for unjust enrichment.

After full briefing and a hearing thereon, by "Order and Judgment" dated April 1, 2020, the circuit court granted Kramer & Frank's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor of Kramer & Frank and against Coburn in the Class Action Case.8

This appeal follows.

II. Standard of Review

Since a motion for judgment on the pleadings addresses a question of law, our review is de novo. Emsweller v. Bi-State Dev. Agency of Missouri-Illinois Metro. Dist. , 591 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ; see also Woods v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 595 S.W.3d 504, 505 (Mo. banc 2020). "For purposes of the motion, the moving party admits the truth of well-pleaded facts in the opposing party's pleadings." Emsweller , 591 S.W.3d at 498 (quoting City of Dardenne Prairie v. Adams Concrete & Masonry, LLC , 529 S.W.3d 12, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted if, "from the face of the pleadings, the moving par...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Lamy v. Stahl Speciality Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 Julio 2022
  • Lamy v. Stahl Speciality Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 Julio 2022
  • In re Crocker
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Julio 2021
    ...in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 54); see generally Missouri Supreme Court Rule 54 (2020); see also Coburn v. Kramer & Frank, P.C. , No. ED108948, 627 S.W.3d 18, 34 (Mo. App. E.D. March 9, 2021) (application for transfer filed in the Missouri Supreme Court on April 27, 2021) (explaining "Flai......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT