Delf v. Cartwright, 45897
| Decision Date | 12 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 45897,45897 |
| Citation | 651 S.W.2d 622 |
| Parties | Phyllis R. DELF, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cliff CARTWRIGHT, a/k/a Clifton Cartwright, Defendant. In the Matter of Clifta C. CARTWRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, and The Drivers License Bureau of the Missouri Department of Revenue, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ernest L. Keathley, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.
Robert R. Sandcork, Clayton, for respondent.
Trial court overruled appellant's motion to set aside the suspension of her driver's license. We affirm for failure to file a complete record on appeal.
Appellant did not file a transcript but submitted a legal file which showed the following. On February 13, 1980, Phyllis R. Delf filed suit for auto damages against Cliff Cartwright a/k/a Clifton Cartwright, 3139 Arsenal, St. Louis, Missouri 63118. On July 29, 1980, the deputy sheriff served process on Cliff Cartwright by substituted service on Brad Cartwright, son, 3139 Arsenal, St. Louis, Missouri. A default judgment was rendered against Cliff Cartwright a/k/a Clifton Cartwright in the amount of $739.40 and costs on October 28, 1980.
Thereafter the judgment was certified to the Missouri Safety Responsibility Unit. On February 18, 1981, the Department of Revenue mailed a notice to appellant, Clifta C. Cartwright, 3139 Arsenal, St. Louis, Missouri 63118, directing her to return her license to the Drivers License Bureau for failure to satisfy the court judgment. She then filed a petition to set aside the suspension of her driver's license. On September 18, 1981, she filed an affidavit stating: she was a woman living at 3139 Arsenal; since 1973 no one named Cliff or Clifton Cartwright had been at that address; and she had neither been named as defendant nor personally served in the action between Phyllis R. Delf and Cliff Cartwright. The record does not show whether this affidavit was introduced into evidence or what consideration the judge accorded it. On April 23, 1982, appellant's motion was heard and overruled. It is from this judgment that Clifta C. Cartwright appeals.
On appeal, the judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct. Cloyd v. Cloyd, 564 S.W.2d 337, 342 (Mo.App.1978). "The existence of every fact essential for the court to have rendered a valid decree is presumed, ... with the burden on the party contesting the judgment to overcome such presumptions." Id. To carry this burden, appellant must demonstrate the error of the trial court's judgment. It is appellant's responsibility to file the transcript and to prepare a legal file so that the record on appeal contains all the evidence necessary for determination of questions presented to the appellate court for decision. Rule 81.12. Where no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. General Motors Corp.
...taken as . . . unfavorable to the appellant." Sydnor v. Dir. of Revenue, 876 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Mo. App.1994) (quoting Delf v. Cartwright, 651 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App.1983)). Point C. DAMAGES I would hold that that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find that GM possessed the requ......
-
Judy v. Arkansas Log Homes, Inc.
...court and unfavorable to the appellant." Sydnor v. Director of Revenue, 876 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Mo.App.1994) (quoting Delf v. Cartwright, 651 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App.1983) (citations omitted)). Based on the record before us, those affidavits were the only means by which plaintiffs could carry ......
-
Burns v. Elk River Ambulance
...no such authority. JEMS has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the error of the trial court's judgment. See Delf v. Cartwright, 651 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App. 1983). Point In Point II, JEMS claims trial court error in overruling its motion for new trial because juror Melissa Shaffer ......
-
Board of Regents for Southwest Missouri State University v. Harriman
...unfavorable to SMSU, and that is why they were not included. Daniels v. Griffin, 769 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Mo.App.1989); Delf v. Cartwright, 651 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App.1983). Id. at Harriman II also discussed requirements for valid garnishments. It held that because there was no proof of servic......