The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.


 

---

SC96376
Brainchild Holdings LLC v. Stephanie Cameron
St. Louis city
Whether there is a constitutional right to a jury trial in a rent and possession case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96376 MP3 audio file
Cameron was represented during arguments by Zachary Schmook of the University of Oklahoma College of Law in Norman, Oklahoma; the Missouri Apartment Association, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court and was granted leave to argue in place of the landlord, was represented by Austin Fax of Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law LLC in Springfield.


Stephanie Cameron entered into an agreement with Brainchild Holdings LLC to lease an apartment in St. Louis beginning in May 2015. In February 2016, the landlord filed a rent and possession lawsuit against Cameron. In her answer, Cameron requested a jury trial. The circuit court ultimately denied her request and set the case for a trial by judge. In February 2016, the circuit court entered judgment in the landlord’s favor. Cameron appeals.

This appeal raises one primary question for the Court – whether a tenant such as Cameron has a state constitutional right to a jury trial for a rent and possession claim brought under chapter 535, RSMo. Related issues include whether claims for rent and possession are legal claims analogous to those existing before the constitution was adopted in 1820; what effect, if any, recent amendments to the chapter eliminating the right to appeal by trial de novo (a trial anew before a different court) has on the right to a jury trial in the initial proceeding; and the extent, if any, to which public policy considerations should affect the legal analysis.

In a brief filed as a friend of the Court, ArchCity Defenders Inc. argues tenants have a due process right, under the state and federal constitutions, to jury trials in rent and possession cases.


Note: By order dated July 18, 2017, amicus Missouri Apartment Association was granted leave to argue on behalf of Brainchild Holdings, which did not file a brief.

SC96376_Cameron_brief.pdf
SC96376_Missouri_Apartment_Ass'n_amicus_brief.pdf
SC96376_Cameron_reply_brief.pdf



SC96376_ArchCity_Defenders_amicus_brief.pdf    



SC96153 
In the Interest of: T.T.G. and S.S.G., W.J.K. and C.A.C.K. v. K.S.G., G.H., et al.
Jackson County
Challenge to constitutional validity of presumption in statute governing termination of parental rights
Listen to the oral argument: SC96153 MP3 audio file
The biological mother was represented during arguments by Christopher Nease of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Kansas City; the prospective adoptive parents were was represented by Sarah Ginther of The Law office of Sarah H. Ginther LLC in Liberty. The guardian ad litem, Catherine Wiehl of Jackson County CASA in Kansas City, also argued.


Because of concerns regarding a biological mother’s mental health condition and compliance with medication requirements, the state removed newborn twin girls from their mother’s custody while in the hospital and placed them in foster care. In January 2016, prospective adoptive parents who were caring for the twins filed a petition seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to adopt the twins. In the meantime, the mother’s parental rights were terminated as to her three older children, giving rise to a statutory presumption of parental unfitness. The mother challenged the constitutional validity of this statutory presumption. The circuit court rejected her challenge. Following a trial, the circuit court found the evidence established grounds for terminating parental rights under several statutory provisions, terminated the mother’s parental rights and approved the twins’ adoption by the prospective adoptive parents. The mother appeals.

This appeal raises several questions for the Court. One is a matter of first impression in Missouri – whether the statutory presumption of parental unfitness is constitutional or whether it improperly shifts the burden to a parent to prove fitness or otherwise violates state and federal due process guarantees. Other questions involve whether the circuit court properly determined and applied the statutory findings required to support termination of parental rights as well as whether there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings about the mother’s fitness as a parent and its judgment terminating her parental rights.


SC96153_Biological_Mother_brief.pdf
SC96153_Prospective_Adoptive_Parents_and_GAL_brief.pdf
SC96153_Juvenile_Officer_brief.pdf
SC96153_Biological_Mother_reply_brief.pdf



SC96307
S.S.S., L.W.V. and M.T.S.-V. v. C.V.S.
St. Louis city
Challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting termination of parental rights in stepparent adoption case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96307 MP3 audio file
The biological father was represented during arguments by Aaron Staebell of Lohmar & Staebell LLC in St. Peters; the biological mother and stepfather were represented by Jonathan Glassman of the Stange Law Firm PC in St. Louis.

A minor child was born to unmarried parents in 2009 in the state of California. Both parents’ names were listed on her birth certificate. The next year, the mother and her daughter moved to St. Louis. The mother and her husband (stepfather) married in December 2013 and have been caring for the child. In December 2014, they filed a petition seeking to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and for the stepfather to adopt the child. The guardian ad litem appointed for the child filed a report noting the child wanted to be adopted by her stepfather. Following a trial, the circuit court found the evidence established multiple statutory grounds for terminating parental rights, terminated the biological father’s parental rights and approved the girl’s adoption by her stepfather. The biological father appeals.

This appeal raises one primary question for this Court – whether there was clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings that, in the six months prior to the petition’s filing, the biological father willfully abandoned the child and neglected to provide her necessary care and protection or whether the judgment was against the weight of the evidence.


SC96307_Biological_Mother_and_Stepfather_brief.pdf
SC96307_Biological_Father_brief.pdf



SC96089
In re: Karl William Hinkebein
Boone County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96089 MP3 audio file
Alan Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel, represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Hinkebein was represented by Sara Rittman of Rittman Law LLC in Jefferson City.

Following an investigation into a complaint from a client, the chief disciplinary counsel began disciplinary proceedings in March 2016 against Columbia attorney Karl Hinkebein, who works in the appellate postconviction relief division of the state public defender’s office. A disciplinary hearing panel held a hearing in July 2016. Evidence was presented that Hinkebein failed to communicate with six of his clients and that circuit courts had found Hinkebein had abandoned these clients after failing to file an amended motion for postconviction relief on the clients’ behalf, despite having received extensions of time to do so. The public defender’s office reassigned these cases, and their new attorneys were permitted to file amended postconviction relief motions. The public defender’s office placed Hinkebein on an employee improvement plan requiring him to notify a supervisor if he thought he would be unable to meet certain filing deadlines and to use a calendaring system reflecting deadlines that others in the office also can monitor. Evidence also was presented that Hinkebein suffers from chronic, severe health problems that detrimentally affected his performance in the time frame in question; has a strong work ethic and a high-quality work product; and was carrying a large workload with little flexibility for the office to refuse to accept cases. In its October 2016 decision, the hearing panel concluded Hinkebein failed to represent his clients diligently, violating Rule 4-1.3, and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases, violating Rule 4-1.4. The panel recommended he be placed on probation for one year with certain conditions. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to suspend Hinkebein’s law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year; Hinkebein argues a reprimand is the appropriate sanction.

This case presents two questions for the Court – whether Hinkebein violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.


SC96089_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief.pdf
SC96089_Hinkebein_brief.pdf

Supreme Court - Dockets