Marriage of Hill, In re, 12705
| Decision Date | 21 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 12705,12705 |
| Citation | 650 S.W.2d 726 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF James C. HILL and Patricia M. Hill. James C. Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, and Patricia M. Hill, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James E. Reeves, Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, for petitioner-appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
After trial the trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of the parties and took under advisement the remaining issues. Thereafter, while in the custody of the trial judge, the tapes which recorded the trial were stolen. After the theft the trial court entered a decree deciding the remaining issues. Respondent then filed a motion for new trial which the trial court sustained "solely for the reason of the loss of the tape recordings".
Appellant contends in two points relied on that granting a new trial was erroneous, (1) because the trial court "did not find that the decree was erroneous in any respect" and that loss of the tapes was not a proper ground, "especially where respondent refused appellant's offer to file an abbreviated transcript under Rule 81.13(a)", and (2) because "respondent affirmatively invited the trial court to make a decision with full knowledge of the loss of the tape recordings and therefore waived any complaint about the loss of the tapes".
The trial court may grant a new trial "upon good cause shown." Rule 78.01. Where in the exercise of its discretion the trial court grants a new trial, appellate review is limited to whether the discretion was abused and in the review appellate courts are more liberal in upholding the trial court's action than where the trial court has denied relief. Moore v. Mills, 623 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Mo.App.1981).
The only Missouri case we find where the trial court granted a new trial because a verbatim transcript could not be prepared is Lawton-Byrne-Bruner Insurance Agency Company v. Air-Flight Cab Company, 479 S.W.2d 218 (Mo.App.1972). On appeal that decision was affirmed. That case discusses and appears to agree with the rationale of Missouri appellate court decisions where a request for new trial, because a complete transcript could not be prepared, was raised for the first time on appeal.
Those decisions indicate that granting a new trial because a transcript cannot be prepared is largely discretionary, depending upon the circumstances, but that where a party is free from fault or negligence, has exercised due diligence, and his right of appeal is prejudiced, a new trial should usually be granted. See Richeson v. Hunziker, 349 S.W.2d 50, 55-56 (Mo.1961); Scharff v. Holschbach, 220 Mo.App. 1139, 296 S.W. 469, 469-470 (1927); Larson v. Shockley, 231 S.W. 1030 (Mo.App.1921); Stevens v. Chapin, 206 Mo.App. 594, 227 S.W. 874 (1921); Todd v. Security Ins. Co., 206 S.W. 412 (Mo.App.1918); Woods v. Bottmos, 206 S.W. 410 (Mo.App.1918). But see Longmire v. Diagraph-Bradley Stencil Machine Corporation, 237 Mo.App. 553, 173 S.W.2d 641 (1943). See also Turman v. Pruitt, 397 P.2d 652 (Okl.1964); Annot., Inability to perfect record for appeal as ground for new trial, 13 A.L.R. 102 (1921), supplemented in 16 A.L.R. 1158 (1922), and 107 A.L.R. 603 (1937); Annot., Death or disability of court reporter before transcription or completion of notes or record as ground for new trial or reversal, 19 A.L.R.2d 1098 (1951); 58 Am.Jur.2d, New Trial, § 162, p. 372; 66 C.J.S. New Trial, § 98(b), (c), p. 280.
Under the rule stated by the Missouri appellate courts, it is not necessary that a finding be made that the judgment is erroneous before granting a new trial. Appellant contends that not requiring such a determination conflicts with the rule that a judgment is presumed valid and that the party contesting it has the burden to overcome that presumption. To require a finding that the judgment is erroneous in this situation would be unrealistic and could deny to the losing party any appellate review. The trial court is not likely to find its judgment improper and an appellate court would not ordinarily be able to make that determination without a transcript, particularly where, as here, there are numerous issues. Of course, if the propriety of the judgment could be determined without a transcript, then granting a new trial would appear to be an abuse of discretion. However, here such a determination cannot be made without a transcript or some type of record of the trial and as there is no indication or contention that respondent or her attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dykes v. McNeill, s. 15066
...State v. McCarver, 113 Mo. 602, 20 S.W. 1058, 1059 (1893); Richeson v. Hunziker, 349 S.W.2d 50, 56 (Mo.1961); In re Marriage of Hill, 650 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Mo.App.1983); Stevens v. Chapin, 206 Mo.App. 594, 227 S.W. 874, 876 (1921). See also State v. Borden, 605 S.W.2d 88, 91-92 (Mo. banc 198......
-
Large v. Carr
...in granting a new trial, the order will be sustained on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is clearly shown. In re Marriage of Hill, 650 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.1983). Instructional error may provide a basis for the trial court to grant a new trial. Clevinger v. Walters, 419 S.W.2d 102, 1......
-
Printer's Service Co. v. Miami Systems Corp.
...to the interrogatory was timely. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting that motion. See In re Marriage of Hill, 650 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Mo.App. 1983). Defendant's point on appeal is denied. The order granting a new trial is 1. The answer defendant filed to Interrogatory No. ......