Yerkes v. Asberry
| Decision Date | 04 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 69668,69668 |
| Citation | 938 S.W.2d 307 |
| Parties | Glenda Kay YERKES, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Stephanie A. ASBERRY a/k/a Neukirch, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendant/Appellant, and Richard E. Yerkes, Defendant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Bernard A. Reinert, Joseph M. Krutzsch, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
Andrew H. Koor, Suddarth & Koor, O'Fallon, for plaintiff/respondent.
Defendant, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, appeals from the trial court's entry of default judgment in favor of plaintiff, Glenda Yerkes, in her action to recover the amount of a notary bond after alleged notarial misconduct. We reverse and remand.
This case arises out of events surrounding the transfer of a piece of real estate owned by Richard Yerkes and his wife, Glenda Yerkes. Glenda Yerkes brought this action against Richard Yerkes and Stephanie Asberry, a notary public, for misrepresentation and conspiracy in obtaining title to the Yerkes' marital home, and against St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and Asberry to recover on the notary bond issued on behalf of Asberry.
Glenda Yerkes claims that Richard Yerkes and Asberry conspired and made fraudulent misrepresentations to Glenda Yerkes thereby inducing her to execute documents releasing her interest in the real estate. Asberry notarized Susan Yerkes' signature on a document entitled "Assent to Execution of Deeds and Waiver of Marital Rights" and on a Quit Claim Deed which conveyed the marital home to Richard Yerkes. Glenda Yerkes claims that both of these documents were notarized without her appearance or consent. She further claims that Asberry knowingly performed notarial services when she had a disqualifying interest in the transaction.
St. Paul was served on July 5, 1995. On September 12, Glenda Yerkes requested leave to file a First Amended Petition to add Richard Yerkes as a defendant. She also filed a motion to shorten the time for a default hearing. A default hearing was held on September 15. The trial court found that both Asberry and St. Paul had failed to file responsive pleadings and entered default judgments against Asberry on all counts and against St. Paul for the full amount of the notary bond.
On September 29, St. Paul timely filed a motion to vacate and set aside the default order and judgment pursuant to rule 74.05(d). On October 13, Asberry filed a motion to set aside the default judgment against her on all counts. Under Rule 74.05(d), the trial court may set aside a default judgment "[u]pon motion stating facts constituting a meritorious defense and for good cause shown." As evidence of a meritorious defense St. Paul stated in its motion that:
[t]he facts in PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION establish that the allegedly wrongful notarization of the exhibits to Plaintiff's petition as amended were not and are not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's claimed damages herein (a) in that Plaintiff admits the genuineness of the signatures on the said documents and (b) in that by virtue of those documents, Plaintiff would have suffered the damages complained of even if the documents had been entirely properly notarized in every respect and in particular without any of the alleged improprieties in the notarization.
St. Paul also filed a proposed answer which denied the allegations of Glenda Yerkes' First Amended Petition and offered three affirmative defenses: (1) that Glenda Yerkes failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; (2) that the wrongful notarization was not the proximate cause of Glenda Yerkes' damages; and (3) that Glenda Yerkes own negligence contributed to cause her loss.
On November 17, a hearing was held on both motions. The court vacated the default judgment against Asberry, but denied the motion to vacate the default judgment against St. Paul. In its order, the court found that St. Paul timely filed its motion and made sufficient showing of "good cause," but that St. Paul failed to set forth a meritorious defense. The court entered an order pursuant to Rule 74.01 finding no just reason for delay. This appeal followed.
The decision to set aside a default judgment lies within the trial court's discretion, and its decision will not be overturned unless the record indicates an abuse of that discretion. Engine Masters, Inc. v. Kirn's, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Mo.App.1994). However, since courts favor a trial on the merits, discretion not to set aside a default judgment is narrower than discretion to set it aside. Id. Thus, appellate courts are more likely to interfere when the trial court has denied the motion to set aside the default judgment. Schulte v. Venture Stores, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 13, 15 (Mo.App.1992).
A notary and the surety on her bond may be found liable "for all damages proximately caused by the notary's official misconduct." § 486.375, RSMo 1994. Therefore, if St. Paul sufficiently pled in its motion to set aside the default judgment that there was no proximate causation, it could constitute a meritorious defense.
In order to show a meritorious defense, the party in default need not present extensive evidence. Bredeman v. Eno, 863...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jew v. Home Depot Usa Inc.
...good cause shown." The decision on a motion to set aside a default judgment lies within the trial court's discretion. Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1997). We will not reverse the trial court's decision unless the record indicates an abuse of discretion. Id. However, the dis......
-
In Re The Marriage of: Christy Lynn Dooley
...court's discretion, and its decision will not be overturned unless the record indicates an abuse of that discretion." Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App. 1997). "However, since courts favor a trial on the merits, discretion not to set aside a default judgment is narrower than di......
-
Heintz Elec. v. Tri Lakes Interiors
...affect the substantive result of the case.'" Tinsley v. B & B Engines, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Mo.App.2000) (quoting Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1997)). "Further, the concept of meritorious defense is not intended to impose a `high hurdle,' but is designed to allow the ......
-
Kan. City Live LLC v. Bukovac
...solely on the factual averments in Bukovac's amended petition. In support of its argument, KC Live relies upon Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 308–09 (Mo.App.E.D.1997), which considered whether the movant had sufficiently pled the meritorious defense that a defect in the notarization of ......
-
Section 11.7 Nature and Extent of Surety’s Liability
...coextensive with that of the principal. Phoenix Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Appleton City, 296 F.2d 787 (8th Cir. 1961); Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (suit on a notary bond) (quoting Krenski v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 908 S.W.2d 917 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995)); City of Independenc......
-
Section 19.9 Conduct of Defendant
...Conduct of Defendant Comparative fault includes "acts or omissions which are in any measure negligent or reckless." Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). The Commissioners’ Comment to the UCFA noted that, in some states, reckless conduct goes under the name of willful......
-
Section 10.20 Principal’s Liability as the Measure of Surety’s Liability
...is measured and limited by the principal’s obligation. Estate of Kauppi v. Bridges, 462 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo. 1971); Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Therefore, when the principal has no liability, neither will the surety. J.R. Watkins Co. v. Lankford, 256 S.W.2d ......
-
Section 11.74 Notary Bonds
...a notary and surety may be found liable “for all damages proximately caused by the notary’s official misconduct.” In Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), default judgments against a principal and surety, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, were set aside and remande......