Payne v. Markeson

• Decision Date: 24 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. WD 75771.,WD 75771.
• Parties: Virginia PAYNE, Respondent, v. Ashley L. MARKESON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

414 S.W.3d 530

Virginia PAYNE, Respondent,

v.Ashley L. MARKESON, Appellant.

No. WD 75771.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 10, 2013.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to the Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29, 2013.

Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 24, 2013.

Jessica Beever, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

John Turner, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Four: JAMES EDWARD WELSH, C.J., ALOK AHUJA, J., and EDITH MESSINA, Sp. J.

JAMES EDWARD WELSH, Chief Judge.

This case arises from a lawsuit filed by Virginia Payne against Ashley Markeson in which Payne sought damages for injuriesthat she incurred in an automobile accident resulting from Markeson's driving while intoxicated. The jury found in favor of Payne and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Markeson appeals the circuit court's denial of her motion to reduce the jury's verdict by the amount of Payne's settlement agreement with a co-defendant and the denial of her motion for remittitur as to punitive damages. We reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.

Background

In September 2009, a vehicle being driven by Ashley Markeson crossed the centerline and collided with Virginia Payne's vehicle. Markeson, who was on probation for a prior DUI conviction, had been drinking at a bar just before the accident. At the time of the accident, Markeson's blood alcohol level was .166 (over twice the legal limit). She was charged, and she pleaded guilty to second-degree assault due to intoxication.

Payne suffered numerous injuries, including fractures to her right ankle, left femur, and right wrist. She filed a lawsuit against Markeson, alleging that Markeson was negligent in causing the accident and seeking compensatory damages for her injuries. She also sought punitive damages on the basis that Markeson's actions demonstrated conscious disregard for the safety of Payne and others.

Payne also sued MM Investments, Inc. (d/b/a Doc Holliday's) pursuant to Missouri's “Dram Shop Act,” section 537.053, RSMo.¹ She alleged that MM Investments continued to serve Markeson alcohol that evening even though she was visibly intoxicated. Payne and MM Investments reached an agreement under which MM Investments agreed to pay Payne $475,000. On March 14, 2012, Payne filed a motion to dismiss her claim against MM Investments. The circuit court dismissed MM Investments on March 27th.

On May 30, 2012, Markeson filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to include an affirmative defense for a reduction in the amount of the settlement agreement, pursuant to section 537.060, RSMo.² Markeson attached a copy of the amended answer that she proposed to file. She also filed a separate “Motion for Reduction or Set–Off,” which set forth the amount of the settlement agreement. At a pre-trial hearing on June 15, the circuit court granted Markeson's motion for leave to file an amended answer, finding that Payne would not be prejudiced by the filing. The court denied the “Motion for Reduction or Set–Off” as moot.

A jury trial commenced on June 25, 2012, at which Payne presented evidence about Markeson's intoxicated condition at the time of the accident, about her own injuries, and about the impact the accident has had on her life. On June 27, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Payne for $350,000 in compensatory damages and concluded that Markeson was liable for punitive damages. During the punitive damages phase of trial, Markeson testified about her punishment in the related criminal case and about the dire state of her personal finances. The jury returned a verdict for $700,000 in punitive damages.

Markeson filed several post-trial motions, all of which were denied. The timing and substance of those motions and the court's rulings on them are critical to the resolution of this appeal. Shortly after the verdict, on July 2, Markeson filed a “Motion to Reduce the Verdict,” in which she sought a reduction of $475,000 because the verdict did not reflect the reduction for the prior settlement, as required by section 537.060. Markeson also filed her amended answer on that same day. It included, as an affirmative defense, her right to a reduction under section 537.060. On July 5, Markeson filed a “Motion for Remittitur” seeking a reduction in the amount of punitive damages on the basis that the awarded amount was excessive.

On July 9, the court entered its “Judgment” in favor of Payne for $350,000 in compensatory damages and $700,000 in punitive damages. The Judgment did not include a reduction for the $475,000 pre-trial settlement amount; nor did it rule on Markeson's claims to a section 537.060 reduction in that amount. Markeson filed her “Motion for New Trial and Motion to Amend the Judgment” on July 31, again seeking a reduction in the judgment in the amount of $475,000, pursuant to section 537.060.

On September 17, the circuit court issued an Order denying both Markeson's and Payne's motions for new trial ³ and denying Markeson's Motion for Remittitur. The court did not rule on Markeson's Motion to Reduce the Verdict but set it for a hearing on October 12, 2012.

At the October 12 hearing, Payne's counsel raised the issue of whether the circuit court still had jurisdiction to rule on the motion. Markeson's counsel stated that she was not prepared for argument on that issue. The court requested that the parties brief the issue and rescheduled the hearing for October 15. On October 15, after the parties presented their arguments, the circuit court told the parties that it had intended to provide Markeson the reduction but that due to the passage of time, the court no longer had jurisdiction over the case and the motion to reduce the verdict could not be granted.

On October 18, the circuit court entered its ruling on the Motion to Reduce the Verdict. The court stated that it had considered the arguments of counsel on the issue of whether the court lacked jurisdiction and had “determined that due to the time constraints set forth in the Rules, the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Motion to Reduce the Verdict.” The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Markeson's Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify the Judgment, which she had filed the day before.

The court also denied Markeson's “Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” which she had filed on October 22, again seeking a reduction for the $475,000 settlement amount. Markeson filed her Notice of Appeal on October 24, 2012.

Discussion

In Markeson's first three points on appeal, her primary contention is that the circuit court erred in denying her Motion to Reduce the Verdict on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.⁴ In Point I, she argues that the circuit court erred in denying her Motion to Reduce the Verdict because it was actually a “motion to amend the judgment” under Rule 78.04,⁵ and, thus, was an authorized post-trial motion that extended the court's jurisdiction to October 29. The question of whether a circuit court has jurisdiction over a case is purely a question of law that this court reviews de novo. McCracken v. Wal–Mart Stores East, LP, 298 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Mo. banc 2009).

Various Missouri Supreme Court Rules enter into the determination of when a judgment becomes final such that the circuit court loses jurisdiction. Under Rule 75.01, the circuit court retains control over a judgment for thirty days to vacate, reopen, correct, amend, or modify the judgment for good cause. A motion for new trial or motion to amend the judgment must be filed before the expiration of that thirty-day period. Rule 78.04. If no authorized after-trial motion is filed within that time period, the judgment becomes final thirty days after entry of the judgment. Rule 81.05(a)(1). “If a party timely files an authorized after-trial motion,” then the judgment becomes final at the earlier of:

(A) Ninety days from the date the last timely motion was filed, on which date all motions not ruled shall be deemed overruled [under Rule 78.06]; or

(B) If all motions have been ruled, then the date of ruling of the last motion to be ruled or thirty days after entry of judgment, whichever is later.

Rule 81.05(a)(2) (emphasis added). Under Rule 78.06, an after-trial motion “is overruled for all purposes if the trial court does not rule on it within ninety days after the date the last such timely motion is filed.”

Rules 81.05(a)(2) and 78.06 both indicate that the court retains jurisdiction to rule on any authorized after-trial motion for ninety days from the date the last such motion was filed (even if the last-filed motion has already been ruled upon).⁶See Seitz v. Seitz, 107 S.W.3d 478, 489 (Mo.App.2003) (holding that under Rules 78.06 and 81.05(a)(2)(B), all after-trial motions not previously ruled are deemed overruled ninety days after the date the last after-trial motion was filed; at that point, the circuit court no longer has jurisdiction to act in the case).

Markeson contends that because the last after-trial motion was filed on July 31, the court had jurisdiction to rule on any authorized post-trial motion, including her motion to reduce the verdict, until October 29, 2012, citing Rule 78.06. See alsoRule 81.05(a)(2). She contends that the court therefore erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on her motion at the October 15 hearing. We agree.

In applying the Rules to the relevant facts, we see that the last timely filed authorized after-trial motion (Markeson's motion for new trial and to amend the judgment) was filed on July 31. Ninety days from that date was October 29. The hearing at which the court found it lacked jurisdiction was on October 15. Although the motion for new trial (the last timely motion) was ruled on September 17, 2012 (along with Payne's July 26 motion for new trial, and Markeson's earlier motion for remittitur), the court had not ruled on all the post-trial motions. It reserved ruling on the Motion to Reduce the Verdict until after it held a hearing on the...