Newton v. Manley, 17032
Citation | 824 S.W.2d 522 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 17032,17032 |
Parties | Larry NEWTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Teresa MANLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
C.H. Parsons, Jr., Joe Z. Satterfield, Parsons, Mitchell, Wilson & Satterfield, P.C., Dexter, for plaintiff-respondent.
David G. Beeson, Stephen C. Wilson, Buerkle, Beeson & Ludwig, Jackson, for defendant-appellant.
In this action, the petition of plaintiff Larry Newton alleged that he sustained personal injuries by reason of defendant Teresa Manley's negligent operation of an automobile. Thirty-two days after Manley was served with a summons and copy of the petition, Newton obtained a default judgment against her in the amount of $100,000. Forty-two days thereafter, Manley filed a motion to set aside that default judgment. Manley appealed the trial court's denial of that motion. By an opinion filed April 26, 1991, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, on October 16, 1991, the application of plaintiff Larry Newton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was sustained. On January 28, 1992, the Supreme Court ordered the case retransferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. With the alteration of this initial paragraph, the original opinion and dissenting opinion of this court are readopted. The following is a summary of the factual background.
The petition alleged that on July 18, 1987, Newton was leaning on the windowsill of an automobile which was stopped on a parking lot when Manley suddenly accelerated the automobile, striking Newton. He charged that Manley was negligent in that she "carelessly failed and neglected to exercise the highest degree of care", she "failed and neglected to keep a reasonable and careful sufficient lookout" and she suddenly accelerated the automobile when she knew or should have known the vehicle would strike Newton and did not give an adequate and timely warning. The petition concludes that Newton sustained injuries to virtually every part of his body, including a severely fractured right wrist. He prayed for judgment in such sum as may be determined to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
Plaintiff Larry Newton was the only witness at the hearing on July 19, 1988, as a result of which the default judgment was rendered. He gave the following account of the accident:
Medical records were admitted. Those records included the following diagnosis: "[D]isplaced intra-articular Smith's fracture of the right wrist." Treatment was "reduction of Smith's fracture with external fixation and internal pinning." The doctor's notes included the following. Newton testified his grip wasn't as good as it had been and he had some trouble lifting. His medical expenses were approximately $6,000 and his lost wages were approximately $4,000. At the conclusion of the testimony, the following exchange took place.
On August 3, 1988, Newton's attorney sent a copy of the default judgment to the District Claims Office of the Farm Bureau Insurance Company. The transmittal letter contained the following paragraph.
On August 30, 1988, Manley, represented by counsel employed by Farm Bureau, filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The motion alleged Manley had a meritorious defense and stated detailed facts to establish that at the time of the incident Newton was threatening Manley and her companion Scott Wyett, and that Newton grabbed the automobile while she was driving away to escape violence. It further alleged that the insurance company had no notice of the action and "there has been no conduct which was intentionally or recklessly designed to impede the judicial process, and this motion to set aside the default judgment has been filed with the court as promptly as possible after learning the applicable facts."
Manley testified by deposition at the hearing on that motion. Her testimony was to the following effect. She was 23 years old and had been divorced for three years. Approximately two years ago, Newton was her boyfriend but she terminated the relationship. She later started going with Scott Wyett. On the evening in question, she and Scott had gone to the show and were riding around. While driving they passed a car driven by Newton. Newton on prior occasions had threatened Scott and Manley. When the cars passed, Newton gestured at them and verbally threatened them. Manley drove to a service station lot and was turning back when the motor died. Newton drove in behind them and got out. He started toward them. He had a chain wrapped around his left hand and was cursing and threatening them. She re-started the motor and was driving off when Newton grabbed the window and then fell to the blacktop.
Scott's grandfather was Curtis Eiceman who was the local agent for Farm Bureau. Manley and Scott told Eiceman of the incident and later gave a statement to an adjuster. When Manley received a letter from Newton's attorney, and when she received the summons and petition, Manley took them to Eiceman's office where they were copied. The automobile was owned by Scott's step-father. It is apparent he was the named insured and the automobile Manley was driving was the described automobile in a liability insurance policy issued by Farm Bureau.
Eiceman testified that he was aware of the incident. Farm Bureau had received a lien letter from an attorney (not present counsel) who then represented Newton in respect to the accident. A Farm Bureau adjuster investigated the incident and later closed the file. A copy of the summons to and petition against Manley was not received in Eiceman's office. It was stipulated that Eiceman's secretaries and an agent employed in his office would testify that to their knowledge Manley did not bring a petition and summons to the office. The trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law. It entered an order in general terms denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.
Manley's point on appeal is that by reason of amended Rule 74.05 (effective January 1, 1988), the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment of July 19, 1988. The directly applicable part of that Rule reads:
Newton first argues Manley is not entitled to relief for the following reason. This is essentially an argument that such relief should be denied because of Manley's negligence in failing to file an answer.
Laughrey, Judgments--The New Missouri Rule, J.Mo.Bar 11, 15 (Jan-Feb 1988). (Emphasis added.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. Reed
...that some showing be made of the existence of at least an arguable theory from which a defense may be made.'" Newton v. Manley, 824 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (quoting Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, 778 S.W.2d 851, 855 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989)). "'[D]efense' in 74.05(c) is not used in a ......
-
Myers v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 20160
...and a default judgment can now be vacated even if the movant has negligently failed to file a timely answer.' " Newton v. Manley, 824 S.W.2d 522, 524 (Mo.App.S.D.1992) (quoting Laughrey, Judgments--The New Missouri Rule, J.Mo.Bar 11, 15 (Jan.-Feb. There is no evidence that Defendant engaged......
-
Phillips v. Bradshaw
...ignorance, or neglect by others. He simply denied being served. In that respect, the instant case also differs from Newton v. Manley, 824 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.S.D.1992), cited by Defendant. There, the defendant testified she took the summons and petition to the office of her insurer. Although......
-
Heintz Elec. v. Tri Lakes Interiors
...proven. It is enough that some showing be made of the existence of at least an arguable theory from which a defense may be made.'" Newton, 824 S.W.2d at 525 (quoting Gibson by Woodall v. Elley, 778 S.W.2d 851, 855 Here, the meritorious defense alleged by Appellant is that of res judicata. "......