Mathes By and Through Mathes v. Nolan, 67309
Decision Date | 13 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 67309,67309 |
Citation | 904 S.W.2d 353 |
Parties | Joseph Michael MATHES By and Through his Next Friend, Kelly Jean MATHES, Richard Mathes and Kelly Kean Mathes, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Joan NOLAN, Defendant/Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Murry A. Marks, Jason S. Marks, St. Louis, for appellants.
Stephanie K. Morrison, Homire, Mueller and Bippen, St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiffs sued defendant, Joan Nolan, for personal injuries allegedly sustained by minor plaintiff, Joseph Mathes, as a result of being mauled by defendant's tenant's dog. The court entered a summary judgment for the defendant and plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
The tenant, David Wear, owned an Alaskan Malamute named Yukon. Allegedly, the dog lunged over the fence and pulled the minor plaintiff onto the rental premises inflicting permanent injuries. Defendant, Joan Nolan, was the owner of the property. Much of the material before the court on the motion for summary judgment involved the level of knowledge defendant had concerning the presence of Yukon on the property and the extent to which Yukon gave the appearance of a propensity for viciousness. Defendant did not reside on the premises leased.
Plaintiffs raised no challenge to the sufficiency of the motion for summary judgment in the court below. On appeal they assert that the motion does not comply with Rule 74.04(c)(1) and that because of such failure we are required to reverse the summary judgment. The motion is not in technical compliance with the Rule, although the non-compliance is minor.
Missouri appellate courts have addressed the question of non-compliance with Rule 74.04(c) on several occasions. The answers have not necessarily been consistent. In a situation where no objection was raised in the trial court we held that the non-movant's failure to challenge the particularity of a pleading at the trial level, including a motion for summary judgment, results in a waiver of the objection. RJF International Corporation v. B.F. Goodrich Company, 880 S.W.2d 366 (Mo.App.1994) [1, 2]. In McCarthy v. Community Fire Protection District of St. Louis County, 876 S.W.2d 700 (Mo.App.1994) we stated that the purpose of the "particularity" requirement of the Rule was to apprise the opposing party, the trial court, and the appellate court of the specific basis upon which the movant claims it is entitled to summary judgment. Failure to comply with the Rule would justify the trial court or this court denying summary judgment. Where however the basis for the judgment is obvious to counsel, to the trial court and to the appellate court the appellate court is authorized to finally dispose of the case in accordance with the mandate of Rule 84.14. This is particularly true where the opponent to the summary judgment has not objected to the lack of particularity in the trial court. A similar position was taken by the Southern District in Commerce Bank of Joplin v. Willis, 785 S.W.2d 787 (Mo.App.1990).
In Mercantile Bank of Sikeston v. Moore, 792 S.W.2d 653 (Mo.App.1990) the Southern District apparently established a more stringent test holding that the motion was defective and reversing the grant of summary judgment on that basis. The court does comment that both sides had filed extensive briefs on the complicated issues. Judge Maus dissented on the basis of Willis, supra. In Snelling v. Bleckman, 891 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.App.E.D.1995) we reversed the grant of summary judgment "because defendant's summary judgment motion did not comply with new Rule 74.04(c)(1)." There was no discussion of either McCarthy, supra or RJF, supra, but the court concluded that "The trial court erred in granting judgment on this defective motion." The Rule as it existed prior to the amendment effective January 1, 1994, upon which McCarthy and RJF were based, also required "particularity" as to the grounds for the summary judgment. In Miller v. Ernst & Young, 892 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.App.E.D.1995) we held that the requirements of the Rule are not subject to waiver by the parties as they exist for the benefit of the trial and appellate courts, as well as the opposing side, to expedite the disposition of cases. The requirements are to preclude trial and appellate courts from having to "sift through a voluminous record, separating fact from conclusion, admissions from disputes, the material from the immaterial, in an attempt to determine the basis for the motion." See Moss v. City of St. Louis, 883 S.W.2d 568 (Mo.App.1994) where objection was made in the trial court to the particularity of the motion.
In Plank v. Union Electric Company, 899 S.W.2d 129 (Mo.App.E.D.1995) we recognized the holdings in Moss and Snelling, but concluded that "the rule need not be applied in this case because error in the application of this rule was not raised below, and we find no manifest injustice resulting from this error." It is our conclusion that the cases which have been cited stand basically for the proposition that failure to comply with Rule 74.04(c)(1) warrants a trial court denying a summary judgment and warrants an appellate court reversing the grant of summary judgment. Most also support the proposition that if the issues and the documents in support of those issues are clear to the litigants, the trial court, and the appellate court, the failure to comply with the Rule does not per se preclude the grant of summary judgment nor the affirming of such a judgment. In short, the trial court and the appellate court are vested with discretion. We cannot conclude that it is in the interest of judicial efficiency or economy to adopt an absolute rule that failure to comply with the Rule precludes summary judgment when the failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. AMBERWOOD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
...338, 339 (1995) (landlord, who was not owner or keeper of dogs owned by tenant, was not liable to injured third party); Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Mo.App.) (same), application to transfer denied,904 S.W.2d 353 (1995); Barnett [by Barnett] v. Rowlette, 879 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Mo.App.......
-
Moore Equipment Co. v. Halferty
...by an appellate court. AgriBank FCB v. Cross Timbers Ranch, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.App.1996) (citing Mathes by Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Mo.App.1995)). In this case, FMC and Halferty did not follow Rule 74.04(c)(1), making it difficult to determine precisely what facts we......
-
Miles v. Rich
...Hensick, 143 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Mo.App.2004); Like ex rel. Like v. Glaze, 126 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Mo.App.2004); Mathes By and Through Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Mo.App.1995). Section 518 of the Restatement “requires that the person held to be liable ‘possesses or harbors' the animal.”......
-
AgriBank FCB v. Cross Timbers Ranch, Inc.
...rule does not, per se preclude the granting of the summary judgment and its affirmance by an appellate court. Mathes by Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Mo.App.1995). The Motion for Summary Judgment is obviously lengthy and the issues are complex. However, in its 31 pages, the motion a......
-
Section 21 Liability of Domestic Animal Owners
...harm caused by a tenant’s dog. Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Rowlette, 879 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994); Mathes ex rel. Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). In Lawrence v. Windsor, 693 S.W.2d 853 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985), the plaintiff was kicked while trimming the hooves on th......
-
Section 12.37 Defendant Owned, Harbored, or Kept the Dangerous Domestic Animal
...property was held not liable for harboring a dog when the dog was in the possession of a tenant. Mathes by and Through Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). When a person’s animal causes injury while in the possession of another, special questions arise. The courts have held......
-
Section 16.17 Wild Animals or Abnormally Dangerous Domestic Animals
...rule, and that followed in most jurisdictions . . . ." Wilson, 103 S.W.3d at 217; see also Mathes by and Through Mathes v. Nolan, 904 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). In Like ex rel. Like v. Glaze, 126 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004), the court held that a person that possesses a dog t......