Brown v. General Motors Assembly Div., 49371
| Decision Date | 06 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 49371,49371 |
| Parties | Vivian BROWN, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS ASSEMBLY DIVISION, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harry James Nichols, St. Louis, for appellant.
Daniel J. Harlan, St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff, Vivian Brown, appeals from an order denying her motion under Rule 74.78 to set aside a judgment affirming a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. She claims the judgment should have been set aside because she did not receive notice of entry of the judgment. We reverse and remand.
The record shows the circuit court entered judgment on March 30, 1984, affirming the Commission's denial of benefits to plaintiff. The legal file shows a notation stating, "Copies sent to attorneys," just below the notation for entry of the judgment.
Plaintiff did not take a direct appeal from the judgment. On September 13, 1984, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside under Rule 74.78. This motion was overruled on October 16, 1984, and plaintiff's appeal is from the order overruling the motion.
Rule 74.78 states:
Upon the entry of an order or judgment, the clerk shall serve a notice of the entry by mail in the manner provided in Rule 43.01 upon every party affected thereby who is not in default for failure to appear and who was not present in court in person or by attorney at the time of the entry of such order of judgment. If such notice is not given, said order or judgment shall be set aside for good cause shown upon written motion filed within 6 months from the entry of the order of judgment.
The court's order denying the motion stated the "court lacks jurisdiction to hear any further matters in this case." On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court ruled correctly because the court's jurisdiction ended thirty days after entry of the judgment under Rule 75.01.
Clearly Rule 74.78 gives a court jurisdiction to set aside a judgment within six months from its entry. This specific provision must be given meaning, notwithstanding the general provisions of Rule 75.01. The court had jurisdiction to hear the Rule 74.78 motion.
Plaintiff's motion states allegations which, if believed, are sufficient to entitle her to relief under Rule 74.78. She alleged neither she nor defendant received notice of the judgment, and that she was not in default for failure to appear and was not present or by attorney when judgment was entered. The lack of notice deprived her of a direct appeal. Hammons v. Hammons, 680 S.W.2d 409, 411 (Mo.App.1984). There is nothing to indicate plaintiff had actual notice of entry of the judgment or that she failed to receive notice due to any lack of diligence on her part. The motion alleges numerous inquiries were made as to the status of the case. Also, the motion was filed within the six-month limit.
We do not address the question of what level of proof is needed under Rule 74.78 to show a notice of entry of a judgment has not been served. We acknowledge the general rule that "a court of record can speak only by its records...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastin v. Franklin, 16826
...The general rule that "a court of record can speak only by its records which import absolute verity," Brown v. General Motors Assembly Div., 695 S.W.2d 501, 502 (Mo.App.1985), does not aid the plaintiffs because the record here speaks only to the fact that the letter notice of trial setting......
-
Lassiter v. Martin
...Groves v. Hall, 628 S.W.2d at 421. Procedurally, the record before us is similar to that considered in Brown v. General Motors Assembly Division, 695 S.W.2d 501 (Mo.App.1985). The record which has been filed contains a copy of a letter which purports on its face to have been sent to the def......
-
Hendrix v. McField, 18105
...15, 1991, setting the case for trial, states Defendant was notified. That is some evidence notice was sent. Brown v. General Motors Assembly Div., 695 S.W.2d 501, 502 (Mo.App.1985). Defendant's post-trial motion does not attack that recital, and the record is bare of any indication Defendan......
-
Marriage of DuBois, In re
...addressing its merits and after the judgment had become final. Third, the lack of notice deprived the wife of a direct appeal. See Brown, 695 S.W.2d at 502; Hammons v. Hammons, 680 S.W.2d 409, 411 (Mo.App.1984). To be timely, a notice of appeal "shall be filed not later than ten days after ......