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.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9 a.m. Wednesday, January 16, 2019
SC97321
Unifund CCR Partners, Assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. William O. Abright
Ralls County
Timeliness of creditor’s motion to revive judgment against debtor
Listen to the oral argument: SC97321 MP3 file
Unifund was represented during arguments by Ronald C. Miller of Miller & Steeno PC in St. Louis. Abright did not file a brief and so was unable to present oral argument.
Unifund was represented during arguments by Ronald C. Miller of Miller & Steeno PC in St. Louis. Abright did not file a brief and so was unable to present oral argument.
Unifund CCR Partners, assignee of Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., sued William Abright for money allegedly owed on a credit card account. The circuit court entered a default judgment against Abright; Unifund served garnishments on Abright’s employer; and the employer garnished funds from Abright’s paychecks and deposited the funds into the circuit court’s registry. After the circuit court received the last garnishment on July 26, 2007, it printed receipts showing it had received a total of $76 in garnishments, which it paid to Unifund’s counsel by check dated July 31, 2007. On July 17, 2017, Unifund filed a motion to revive the judgment against Abright. Following a hearing the next month, the circuit court overruled the motion, holding it had not been filed in a timely manner. Unifund moved to set aside this order; following another hearing, the circuit court overruled this motion as well. Unifund appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether Unifund timely filed its motion to revive the underlying judgment. Related issues include the relative requirements of a statute and rule about the timing of such a filing, the procedure and burden of proof for such motions, and whether the record supports a showing of cause for not reviving the underlying judgment.
SC97321_Unifund_brief
(Abright did not file a brief)
SC97330
Ronald Johnson v. State of Missouri
St. Louis city
Challenge to denial of postconviction relief
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether Unifund timely filed its motion to revive the underlying judgment. Related issues include the relative requirements of a statute and rule about the timing of such a filing, the procedure and burden of proof for such motions, and whether the record supports a showing of cause for not reviving the underlying judgment.
SC97321_Unifund_brief
(Abright did not file a brief)
SC97330
Ronald Johnson v. State of Missouri
St. Louis city
Challenge to denial of postconviction relief
Listen to the oral argument: SC97330 MP3 file
Johnson was represented during arguments by Amy E. Lowe of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Johnson was represented during arguments by Amy E. Lowe of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Daniel N. McPherson of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Ronald Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree robbery and armed criminal action in the death of a man in St. Louis and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Johnson subsequently sought postconviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief. Johnson appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether Johnson’s trial attorney used the threat of the death penalty to coerce him to plead guilty and to accept a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Related issues include whether Johnson is ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability, whether a reasonably competent attorney would have informed Johnson he was eligible for the death penalty, and whether Johnson’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Another question involves whether Johnson proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in not challenging the sufficiency of his court-ordered mental examination or in not seeking a second independent examination. A further question involves whether Johnson proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, he was not competent to plead guilty or otherwise proceed in his case. Related issues involve the extent of Johnson’s intellectual disability and whether it rendered him legally incapable of entering a voluntary plea of guilty.
SC97330_Johnson_brief
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether Johnson’s trial attorney used the threat of the death penalty to coerce him to plead guilty and to accept a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Related issues include whether Johnson is ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability, whether a reasonably competent attorney would have informed Johnson he was eligible for the death penalty, and whether Johnson’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Another question involves whether Johnson proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, his attorney was constitutionally ineffective in not challenging the sufficiency of his court-ordered mental examination or in not seeking a second independent examination. A further question involves whether Johnson proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, he was not competent to plead guilty or otherwise proceed in his case. Related issues involve the extent of Johnson’s intellectual disability and whether it rendered him legally incapable of entering a voluntary plea of guilty.
SC97330_Johnson_brief
SC97352
State of Missouri ex rel. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. The Honorable Michael Wagner, Circuit Juge, Division 11, 17th Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Missouri
Cass County
Discoverability of documents in insurance case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97352 MP3 file
Shelter was represented during arguments by William Clayton Crawford of Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford PC in Kansas City; Brennan was represented by Christopher P. Sweeny of Turner & Sweeny in Kansas City.
Shelter was represented during arguments by William Clayton Crawford of Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford PC in Kansas City; Brennan was represented by Christopher P. Sweeny of Turner & Sweeny in Kansas City.
Nathaniel Brennan was insured by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company at the time he was involved in a vehicle accident in which Kathlene McKeehan-Brown was injured. She and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit against Brennan, and judgment was entered in their favor. Shelter paid the coverage limit of the policy in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The Browns subsequently sued Shelter and Brennan for equitable garnishment, seeking additional amounts under Shelter insurance policies they allege afforded coverage to Brennan for the personal injury judgment against him. Shelter denied any further coverage applied, and Brennan ultimately filed a cross-claim against Shelter alleging a bad-faith refusal to settle the Browns’ injury claims. In response to a discovery request Brennan made for his entire claims file, Shelter produced to him certain documents, some of which it redacted, and withheld others entirely, claiming these documents were subject to the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege. Brennan sought an in camera (by the circuit court alone) review of the documents Shelter redacted and withheld. After its review, the circuit court entered its order permitting discovery of the documents Shelter redacted or sought to withhold. Shelter seeks this Court’s writ prohibiting discovery of the documents.
This proceeding presents one question for this Court – whether Shelter’s documents should be protected from discovery under the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Related issues include whether Shelter proved the documents are communications between Shelter and its attorneys or contain mental impressions of Shelter’s attorneys; whether the attorneys were acting in an ordinary claim-handling role or were prepared in anticipation of litigation; and whether Shelter voluntarily disclosed the documents to third parties or otherwise waived any privilege.
This proceeding presents one question for this Court – whether Shelter’s documents should be protected from discovery under the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Related issues include whether Shelter proved the documents are communications between Shelter and its attorneys or contain mental impressions of Shelter’s attorneys; whether the attorneys were acting in an ordinary claim-handling role or were prepared in anticipation of litigation; and whether Shelter voluntarily disclosed the documents to third parties or otherwise waived any privilege.