O'Neill v. O'Neill

• Decision Date: 31 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. ED 102038,ED 102038
• Citation: 460 S.W.3d 51
• Parties: Matthew G. O'Neill, Respondent, v. Stefanie D. O'Neill, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

460 S.W.3d 51

Matthew G. O'Neill, Respondent

v.Stefanie D. O'Neill, Appellant.

No. ED 102038

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR .

Filed: March 31, 2015

Mary D. Benoit, 2016 S. Big Bend Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63117, for appellant.

Sharon E. Cody, 415 North Second Street, St. Charles, MO 63301, for respondent.

Patricia L. Cohen, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Stefanie O'Neill (Wife) appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying her motion to set aside a default judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew O'Neill (Husband), distributing property, ordering child support, and awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody of the parties' three minor children. We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

Wife and Husband married in October 1998. The parties had three children born during the marriage. Wife and Husband separated in December 2013, and Husband filed his petition for dissolution on January 28, 2014.

On March 3, 2014, Mother received a copy of the petition and a summons, which required Wife to “appear before this court and to file [her] pleading to the pleading ... all within 30 days after receiving this summons....” Wife did not file a responsive pleading. On April 9, 2014, Husband filed a notice of hearing on his petition for dissolution of marriage, setting it for hearing on May 1, 2014.

Wife and Husband appeared in court on May 1, 2014, and the trial court continued the case. The trial court entered the following order: “Cause continued to May 20, 2014 at 9:30 am to allow (Wife) opportunity to file responsive pleadings and/or hire an attorney.”

Wife and Husband returned to court on May 20, 2014. At the start of the proceeding, the trial court announced that “the case was set for a default hearing” and that Wife had neither filed a responsive pleading nor hired an attorney. At this point, Wife interrupted, stating, “I have my pleading right here.... I thought I was supposed to bring it with me today. It's right here, the paper that I was given to fill out and have notarized.” The trial court informed Wife that “[i]t was supposed to be filed before today,” declared that “no responsive pleadings have been filed, despite the Court granting additional time to [Wife],” and proceeded to conduct a default hearing.

At the hearing, Husband testified to the allegations in his petition for dissolution of marriage and the contents of his Form 14 and proposed parenting plan and division of property.¹ After hearing Husband's evidence, the trial court granted the judgment of dissolution of marriage and incorporated by reference Husband's parenting plan, Form 14, and proposed division of property. The judgment awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody and provided Husband “shall have custody, visitation and residential time” Thursday evenings, every other weekend, and alternating holidays.

Wife received a copy of the judgment on May 28, 2014 and, after retaining counsel, she filed a motion to set aside the judgment of dissolution of marriage on June 11, 2014. In her motion, Wife alleged that she had “good cause to set aside the judgment because she attempted to file an answer with the court to raise matters in this case that constitute a meritorious defense to the dissolution action. She was not able to retain an attorney until recently but has now retained an attorney.” In addition, she alleged fifteen “meritorious defenses,” including, inter alia: (1) Wife “appeared in court with her Answer to the Petition but she was not allowed to file it”; (2) the judgment ordered Wife to refinance the marital home in six months and she was “not sure if she can” refinance within that period of time; (3) Wife never received documentation reflecting the value of Husband's pension at the time of marriage; (4) the judgment failed to include Husband's “other retirement plan at Prudential,” 401(k), and joint bank account; (5) Husband's and Wife's incomes as provided in the Form 14 were incorrect; and (6) Husband had a drinking problem and a history of domestic violence.

On August 25, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on Wife's motion to set aside. Wife testified that she appeared in court on May 20, 2014 and brought with her a “respondent's answer” (Exhibit D). Wife explained that the clerk had given her the answer form and an attorney friend helped her complete it. In regard to her effort to file the answer, Wife stated: “I brought it to court with me and came over there and sat down. And when we began the proceedings, I said is this—don't I need to file my answers? And I was told it was too late to do so.” Wife offered and the trial court admitted Wife's Exhibit D.

When Wife attempted to testify to the bases for her motion to set aside the judgment, Husband's counsel objected on relevancy grounds, asserting, “[t]he motion to set aside is purely a legal basis for which the Court could set this aside, not that she doesn't like the judgment.” The trial court sustained Husband's objections. As to her failure to respond to the petition, Wife explained: “The simple answer is I didn't know I was supposed to. I've never been divorced before. I don't know how the proceedings work. I mean, when I was told to appear, I thought I just needed to appear....” In addition, Wife stated that she did not hire an attorney prior to the May 20, 2014 hearing because she was “[f]inancially ... unable to.”

Finally, Wife testified that she was requesting the court set aside the judgment because she was concerned about “[t]he children being allowed unsupervised visitation with [Husband].” Husband's counsel objected to Wife's testimony on grounds of relevancy, and the trial court ruled, “we are not going to get into what her concerns are. This is a motion to set aside.” Wife then made an offer of proof as to Husband's history of domestic violence and her intent to request a guardian ad litem on May 20, 2014. After Wife's offer of proof, the trial court announced it would “keep its original ruling that the objection is sustained.”

On September 16, 2014, the trial court entered its judgment denying Wife's motion to set aside. The judgment stated: “The court having reviewed the record, applicable relevant statutes and case law, and having made credibility determinations regarding the witness[,] finds Ms. O'Neill's testimony not to be credible in regards to her motion to set aside judgment. Motion denied.” Wife appeals.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to set aside a default judgment for an abuse of discretion. Beeman v. Beeman, 296 S.W.3d 514, 517 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (citing Brungard v. Risky's Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo. banc 2007) ). “We will reverse the trial court's ruling under the abuse of discretion standard only when the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks our sense of justice and indicates to us that the trial court did not carefully consider the case.” Id. “There is, however, ‘a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits' and against resolving litigation by default.” In re Marriage of Callahan, 277 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2009) (quoting Brungard, 240 S.W.3d at 688 ). For this reason, “[a]n appellate court is much more likely to interfere with the trial court's decision when the motion to set aside the judgment has been denied.” In re Marriage of Lewis , 375 S.W.3d 870, 872 (Mo.App.S.D.2012). “Our distaste for default judgments is even stronger in dissolution cases involving child custody issues.” Beeman, 296 S.W.3d at 517. See also Bell v. Bell, 849 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Mo.App.W.D.1993).

Discussion

In her point on appeal, Wife claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Rule 74.05. More specifically, Wife asserts that the trial court abused its discretion because: (1) Wife attempted to file an answer on May 20, 2014; (2) Wife alleged “several matters in her motion to set aside the dissolution judgment that constituted a meritorious defense”; (3) Wife pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate good cause; and (4) the trial court refused to admit relevant evidence. Husband counters that the trial court did not err in denying Wife's motion to set aside the default judgment because Wife failed to demonstrate good cause and a meritorious defense.

As an initial matter, we address Husband's claim that Wife's point relied on violates Rule 84.04.² Rule 84.04 provides that an appellant must present points relied on that: “(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Rule 84.04(d)(1). “A point addressing multiple issues or structured so that it groups together contentions not related to a single issue is not concise and violates Rule 84.04.” Burbridge v. Union Pacific R. Co., 413 S.W.3d 649, 653 n.3 (Mo.App.E.D.2013). Multifarious points relied on preserve nothing for review. Spradling v. Treasurer, 415 S.W.3d 126, 135 (Mo.App.S.D.2013). “Nevertheless, this [c]ourt may exercise its discretion and attempt to resolve issues on their merits unless the defective point impedes disposition of the case on its merits.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

We agree with Husband's assertion that Wife's page-long point relied on groups together numerous allegations of trial court error and fails to state concisely the legal reasons for her claim. However, this court will generally, as a matter of discretion, review on the merits where disposition is not hampered by the rule violations, and we “generally refrain from dismissing appeals involving child custody on the basis of technical violations.” In re A.R., 330 S.W.3d 858, 860 n.1 (Mo.App.W.D.2011). Because we are able to ascertain the general...