State ex rel. A.N.W. by T.J.W. v. D.T.F., 57290
| Decision Date | 09 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 57290,57290 |
| Citation | 788 S.W.2d 805 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, ex rel., A.N.W., by her next friend T.J.W., and T.J.W. individually, Respondent, v. D.T.F., and George W. Seibert, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Steven J. Bratten, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Bradley Harold Lockenvitz, Linn, for respondent.
Appellant, D.T.F., appeals the August 31, 1989, judgment of the Circuit Court of Osage County declaring him to be the father of A.N.W. and ordering him to pay child support. We affirm.
On July 1, 1987, A.N.W., by next friend T.J.W., filed her "Petition for Declaration of Paternity and Order of Support and Custody" with the Circuit Court of Osage County. Appellant filed a timely answer and on December 16, 1987, filed a request for admissions pursuant to Civil Rule 59.01(a). The sole admission requested by appellant was that D.T.F. was "not the natural and biological father of the minor child known as [A.N.W.]". This request for admissions remained unanswered until March 25, 1988, at which time it was denied by respondent.
On July 7, 1988, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that, as respondent failed to submit a written answer to his request for admissions within 20 days after service, Rule 59.01(a) required that the matter be deemed admitted. The trial court denied summary judgment and, on August 13, 1989, entered its judgment finding appellant to be the father of A.N.W. and ordering appellant to pay $130.00 per month in child support. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment because his lack of paternity should have been deemed admitted when respondent failed to answer his request for admissions in a timely manner. We find absolutely no merit to appellant's contentions. It is a well-established rule that the trial court has the discretion to allow the late filing of answers to "requests for admissions" and that, absent a showing of bad faith or prejudice, there is no abuse of this discretion. Coates v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 525 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Mo.App., St.L.D.1975); Holt v. Best, 750 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Mo.App., S.D.1988). The prejudice that must be shown in such a case must relate "to the difficulty a party may face in proving its case because of the sudden need to obtain evidence required to prove the matter that had been admitted." Holt, 750 S.W.2d at 707. Absent such a showing, there is no prejudice. Id. In the present case, the answer to appellant's request for admissions was sent in March of 1988. This was more than three months before appellant's motion for summary judgment and over a year before the June 1, 1989, trial date. This court can find no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dana Commercial Credit Corp. v. Cukjati
...court has discretion in determining whether late responses to requests for admissions should be permitted. State ex rel. A.N.W. v. D.T.F., 788 S.W.2d 805, 805-806 (Mo.App.E.D.1990); American Bank of Princeton v. Stiles, 731 S.W.2d at 342; Crawford v. Boatman's Bank of West County, 637 S.W.2......
-
Page v. Lewis, 66323
...request for admissions and interrogatories. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this ruling. State ex rel. A.N.W. v. D.T.F., 788 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Mo.App.E.D.1990). In their second point, appellants argue the trial court erred by sustaining respondents' objections to the introduc......
-
Lichtor v. Missouri Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts
...did respond and did request that he be permitted to file a response out of time. In State ex rel. A.N.W. by T.J.W. v. D.T.F., 788 S.W.2d 805[1, 2] (Mo.App.1990), the court held that it is well-established that the trial court has discretion to allow a late response to a request for admissio......