State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. Moulder

• Decision Date: 18 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 14774,14774
• Citation: 726 S.W.2d 812
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex rel., MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl MOULDER, et al., Exceptions of Charles S. Reynolds, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 812

726 S.W.2d 812

STATE of Missouri, ex rel., MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl MOULDER, et al., Exceptions of Charles S. Reynolds,

Defendant-Respondent.

No. 14774.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division One.

Feb. 18, 1987.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer

to Supreme Court Denied

March 12, 1987.

Application to Transfer Denied April 14, 1987.

Bruce A. Ring, Judy A. Curan, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jerry L. Reynolds, Larry B. Moore, Springfield, for defendant-respondent.

GREENE, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (Commission) appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant, Charles S. Reynolds, in the sum of $40,000.

The case involved a claim by Reynolds for the taking of 5.54 acres of his land and damaging the remainder of his property, by reason of condemnation by the Commission of part of the land necessary for the construction of Route 65 Bypass in Greene County, Missouri.

On appeal, the Commission does not question the amount of the judgment, or allege any error in the trial of the court-tried case. The only point relied on is that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling the Commission's motion to dismiss the Reynolds claim for failure to timely prosecute, after which ruling the trial in question took place. We affirm.

Missouri disfavors the dismissal of cases because of failure to prosecute, Horobec v. Mueller, 628 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo.App.1982), as the law favors trial on the merits. Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining whether cases should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and their determination on that issue will not be disturbed on appeal unless their discretion is abused. Id. at 944. Trial court discretion in this area is not abused unless its ruling is so illogical, when weighed by the facts and circumstances before the trial court at the time, that it shocks the sense of justice. If reasonable men can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by such ruling. Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Mo. banc 1976). The trial court's intimate knowledge of all aspects of the case puts it in a far better position than we to determine who caused the delay, and if it has been prejudicial to the complaining party. For this reason, there is a presumption that the trial court's ruling on the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was a correct one, Schreck v. Parker, 388 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo.App.1965), and the Commission has the burden of proof in overcoming that presumption. State ex rel. Highway and Transportation Commission v. Boise Cascade Corporation, 655 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Mo.App.1983). The Commission has not met that burden.

In its motion to dismiss, and in its brief filed here, the Commission seems to take the position that since the petition in condemnation was filed in 1966, and that the case was still pending in 1982, when it filed its motion to dismiss, the delay of 16 years, of and by itself, mandated that the trial court sustain its motion, citing City of Jefferson v. Capital City Oil Company, 286 S.W.2d 65 (Mo.App.1956), and State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Manley, 549 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.App.1977), as authority for its position. The Commission's reliance on City of Jefferson and Manley is misplaced.

In the City of Jefferson, the appellate court stated, "It is our conclusion that when the Schells showed that the city's exceptions had been pending for five years and four months, an unreasonable delay unless a valid excuse was shown, they were not required to also show that they had been injured thereby ..." (emphasis ours). Id. at 68. In Manley, a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was overruled, and the case tried on exceptions to the Commission's award. In reversing for abuse in discretion in overruling the motion to...