Case Summary for December 13, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for December 13, 2016

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 13, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC95916
Stewart R. Hopkins v. State of Missouri
Taney County
Denial of postconviction relief
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95916.mp3
Hopkins was represented during arguments by Amy M. Bartholow of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Christine K. Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

A jury found Stewart Hopkins guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the October 2010 stabbing death of his ex-wife in a Branson motel room. The circuit court sentenced Hopkins to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed on appeal in May 2014. Hopkins timely filed a motion seeking postconviction relief along with an affidavit of indigency. The circuit court entered an “order of notification” in August 2014 informing the public defender that Stewart had filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. A public defender entered his appearance in September 2014 and, in December 2014, filed an amended motion alleging Hopkins’ trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of recordings of telephone calls Hopkins had made from the county jail in which he referenced his prior criminal history. The circuit court ultimately overruled the motion. Hopkins appeals.

This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves the timeliness of the amended motion and – if this Court deems “notification” to be an “appointment” of counsel – whether the circuit court should hold a hearing to determine whether postconviction counsel abandoned Hopkins. The other question involves whether Hopkins’ trial counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the admission of evidence of Hopkins’ prior or uncharged crimes through the jail telephone call recordings and whether Hopkins was prejudiced as a result.

SC95916_Hopkins_brief.pdf

SC95916_State_brief.pdf

SC95755
David and Crystal Holm v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
Clinton County
Discovery sanctions, damages awarded in wrongful foreclosure case
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95755.mp3
The mortgage companies were represented during arguments by Eric D. Martin of Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis; the Holms were represented by Kenneth B. McClain of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain PC in Independence.

David and Crystal Holm owned a home in Holt. In July 2001, they executed a deed of trust secured by a mortgage payable to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. In May 2008, the Holms notified Wells Fargo that the home had sustained storm damage and alleged they asked Wells Fargo to endorse a check from the Holms’ insurance carrier to cover repairs. Wells Fargo subsequently began foreclosure proceedings. Although the Holms alleged they were not in default on their mortgage and sent the company funds to reinstate the loan, Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property, which the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) purchased. In November 2008, the Holms sued Wells Fargo for wrongful foreclosure and sought to quiet title (regain title in their name) against Freddie Mac. Disputes ultimately arose over the Holms’ requests for discovery of documents and other information dating back to July 2001. Multiple hearings regarding the discovery disputes followed, and the circuit court appointed a master to resolve the disputes. The master ordered the mortgage companies to produce 27 categories of documents. Two weeks before the trial, the circuit court granted the Holms’ motion for sanctions. It struck the mortgage companies’ pleadings, prohibited them from introducing evidence or cross-examining the Holms’ witnesses, and ordered them to pay the Holms nearly $34,000 in attorney fees and expenses for efforts to enforce discovery. On the day of trial, the circuit court announced the case would be tried to a judge rather than a jury. The Holms had waived a jury trial, but the mortgage companies argued that they had not and that their right to a jury trial was “inviolate” under the state constitution and section 510.190, RSMo. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the Holms, awarding them nearly $296,000 for various types of actual damages and nearly $2.96 million in punitive damages and putting title to the property back in their names. The mortgage companies appeal.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the Holms’ claims for sanctions and whether its refusal to allow Wells Fargo to present a defense violated the company’s constitutional rights to due process. Another question involves whether the circuit court violated Wells Fargo’s constitutional and statutory rights to a jury trial by requiring the case to be tried to a judge rather than a jury or whether Wells Fargo contractually waived any such rights. An additional question involves whether the evidence established Wells Fargo wrongfully foreclosed on the Holms and whether the Holms had an enforceable reinstatement agreement with Wells Fargo. Other questions involve whether the Holms could receive monetary damages and retain ownership in the property, whether the circuit court properly calculated economic damages, and whether the Holms presented sufficient evidence to support their claims for special damages for emotional distress, post-foreclosure diminution in property value and post-foreclosure property repairs. An additional question involves whether the punitive damages award is supported by the evidence, exceeds the amount allowed by state law or is substantially disproportionate to actual damages.

SC95755_mortgage_companies_brief.pdf

SC95755_Holms_brief.pdf

SC95755_mortgage_companies_reply_brief.pdf

SC95532
Charles & Mary Harter v. Director of Revenue
St. Louis
Eligibility for, and calculation of, state tax credit
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95532.mp3
Charles A. Harter, an attorney in St. Louis, represented himself and his wife during arguments; the director was represented by Curtis M. Schube of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Charles and Mary Harter challenged the department of revenue’s tax computations for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, alleging Mary Harter is disabled, entitling them to a state property tax credit. The director of revenue issued a summary decision assessing tax deficiencies for 2010 and 2011 and denying refunds for 2012 and 2013. The Harters petitioned the administrative hearing commission to void the assessments of deficiency and to recover the refunds. The commission upheld, without a hearing, the director’s summary decision. The Harters appeal.

This case presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the commission was required to hold a hearing regarding the Harters’ petition. Another question involves the Harters’ eligibility for the property tax credit and whether they have standing (legal ability) to address this issue on appeal. An additional question involves whether social security disability benefits and annuity payments must be calculated as state income and, if so, their effect on the tax credit.

SC95532_Harters_brief.pdf

SC95532_Director_of_Revenue_brief.pdf

SC95532_Harters_reply_brief.pdf

SC95785
Tracfone Wireless Inc. v. Director of Revenue
Cole County
Eligibility of wireless company’s sales for state sales tax exemption
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95785.mp3
TracFone was represented during arguments by John S. Kingston of Thompson Coburn LLP in St. Louis; the director was represented by Emily A. Dodge of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

TracFone Wireless Inc. is a national prepaid wireless company based in Florida. It sells, from Florida, cellular telephone handsets. It also purchases “airtime,” which allows access to network facilities owned or operated by national wireless carriers, from the carriers and resells it in prepaid packages. In December 2012, TracFone sought a refund for the difference between the sales taxes it remitted for sales to Missouri customers and the use taxes it claims it should have remitted instead for December 2009 through December 2011. The director of revenue denied TracFone’s claims. TracFone sought review from the administrative hearing. Following a hearing, the commission upheld the director’s decisions, finding that TracFone was not entitled to a sales tax refund and that the transactions were not subject to use tax. TracFone appeals.

This case presents two questions for this Court involving whether TracFone’s sales are subject to Missouri sales or use tax. One related issue involves whether the sales are for the provision of wireless service in Missouri, using Missouri telecommunications facilities and equipment, subject to state sales tax or whether the sales are subject to the exemption in section 144.030.1, RSMo, for retail sales made “in commerce.” Another issue involves whether the uniformity clause in article X, section 3 of the state constitution or this Court’s precedence requires application of the state’s use tax to TracFone’s sales of telecommunications service.

SC95785_Tracfone_brief.pdf

SC95785_Director_of_Revenue_brief.pdf

SC95785_Tracfone_reply_brief.pdf