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
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Due to concerns regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), oral arguments scheduled for May 2020 will be conducted remotely, unless the parties request their cases be submitted on briefs.
Scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. – SC98307
John Doe 122 v. Marianist Province of the United States and Chaminade College Preparatory Inc. and Father Martin Solma
St. Louis County
Challenge to judgment in favor of religious order, school sued for sexual abuseListen to the oral argument: SC98307 MP3 file
Doe was represented during arguments by Kenneth M. Chackes of Ken Chackes LLC in St. Louis; Chaminade and the Marianist Province were represented by Alexandra S. Haar of HeplerBroom LLC in St. Louis.
John Doe 122 sued Marianist Province of the United States and Chaminade College Preparatory Inc., a Marianist high school, alleging he was sexually abused in 1971 by John Woulfe, a now deceased Marianist brother who worked as a guidance counselor at the school. Doe sought damages for claims including negligent supervision of clergy, intentional failure to supervise clergy and negligent failure to supervise children. He alleged he lost memory of the abuse when he was 19 or 20 years old and did not recover any memory of the abuse until January 2012, when he received a letter from the Marianist Province to Chaminade alumni disclosing another student had reported being sexually abused by Woulfe. Chaminade and the Marianist Province sought summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial). Doe objected, alleging information in Woulfe’s personnel file contained euphemistic or coded language indicating the Marianist Province knew Woulfe had sexually abused minors before the province transferred Woulfe to Chaminade and while he worked there, although the records do not explicitly mention sexual abuse. Doe further alleged the Marianist records reflect other students in the early 1970s reported that Woulfe had sexually abused them and that he was removed from Chaminade sometime in the 1976-77 school year due to a report that he sexually abused a student. The Marianist Province and Chaminade moved to strike substantial portions of the evidence Doe had submitted in his objection to their motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Chaminade and the Marianist Province, holding this Court’s 1997 decision in Gibson v. Brewer required dismissal of Doe’s negligence claims as a matter of law and that there was no competent evidence in the record supporting Doe’s claim of intentional failure to supervise clergy. Doe appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly dismissed Doe’s negligence claims. Related issues include whether Gibson conflicts with United States Supreme Court decisions regarding federal constitutional law, the extent to which Chaminade and the Marianist Province are entitled to immunity or protection under the church autonomy doctrine, and whether the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or establishment clause bar judicial consideration of whether Chaminade committed secular torts resulting in secular harm. A second question involves whether the circuit court properly granted Chaminade summary judgment on Doe’s claim of intentional failure to supervise clergy. Related issues include whether Chaminade’s motion for summary judgment was supported by any statements of undisputed material fact and whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Chaminade had prior knowledge that Brother Woulfe posed a harm to students and disregarded this known risk.
Several organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Missouri KidsFirst and SNAP argue Gibson allows Doe’s negligence claims to proceed, his negligent supervision of clergy and negligent failure to supervise children claims are not protected by the First Amendment and can be litigated according to neutral principles of law, and a priest’s testimony Doe offered was sufficient to allow Doe’s intentional failure to supervise clergy claim to proceed. The Thomas More Society and the Christian Legal Society argue Gibson and First Amendment jurisprudence bar negligent supervision claims lodged against a religious official based on the doctrine of church autonomy, which is part of the history of Western civilization and America’s constitutional formation, noting the jurisprudence is different for intentional torts.
Scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. – SC97984
Christine Ann Lollar v. Richard Dwain Lollar
St. Louis County
Challenge to award of retirement account in dissolution judgment
Listen to the oral argument: SC97984 MP3 file
The wife was represented during arguments by Cheryl A. Rafert of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri Inc. in St. Louis; the husband did not file a brief and, therefore, was not permitted to argue.
A wife filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to her husband, seeking sole custody of their minor child and division of property. In her amended income and expense statement, the wife identified that the husband had a retirement account. At the time, the husband was being held in the county jail on charges of first-degree statutory rape, statutory sodomy and child molestation involving his alleged abuse of the couple’s minor child. During the trial, the husband indicated he did not object to the court granting the wife sole custody with no visitation for him. During her testimony, she explained how she had spent the husband’s last paychecks and her tax refunds to pay bills and requested 100 percent of her husband’s retirement account – a marital asset valued at less than $5,000 – because the husband’s abuse of their child constituted marital misconduct. The husband objected to his wife receiving anything more than 50 percent of the account. The circuit court entered its judgment awarding the wife sole custody of the child and awarding the husband 100 percent of the retirement account, holding it could not divide the marital property into equal shares because the wife had dissipated the marital assets by spending the husband’s last paychecks and her tax refunds to pay bills. The wife appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court properly awarded the husband the entirety of the retirement account.
Listen to the oral argument: SC97984 MP3 file
The wife was represented during arguments by Cheryl A. Rafert of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri Inc. in St. Louis; the husband did not file a brief and, therefore, was not permitted to argue.
A wife filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to her husband, seeking sole custody of their minor child and division of property. In her amended income and expense statement, the wife identified that the husband had a retirement account. At the time, the husband was being held in the county jail on charges of first-degree statutory rape, statutory sodomy and child molestation involving his alleged abuse of the couple’s minor child. During the trial, the husband indicated he did not object to the court granting the wife sole custody with no visitation for him. During her testimony, she explained how she had spent the husband’s last paychecks and her tax refunds to pay bills and requested 100 percent of her husband’s retirement account – a marital asset valued at less than $5,000 – because the husband’s abuse of their child constituted marital misconduct. The husband objected to his wife receiving anything more than 50 percent of the account. The circuit court entered its judgment awarding the wife sole custody of the child and awarding the husband 100 percent of the retirement account, holding it could not divide the marital property into equal shares because the wife had dissipated the marital assets by spending the husband’s last paychecks and her tax refunds to pay bills. The wife appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court properly awarded the husband the entirety of the retirement account.
(The husband did not file a brief.)
Scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. – SC98245
In re: Gaylard T. Williams
St. Louis
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC98245 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel’s office was represented during arguments by Special Representative Marc A. Lapp, an attorney in St. Louis; Williams, an attorney in St. Louis, represented himself.
In 2005, a woman hired Jennings attorney Gaylard Williams regarding a financial dispute over her purchase of a house. She previously had met him approximately 20 years earlier at a party but denied dating him or having consensual sexual relations with him at any time before he became her attorney. The woman has a history of being abused, first by her father and then by her former husband. She alleges Williams asked her to meet about a month after she retained him to sign some paperwork and forced her to have sex. The woman hired Williams on three subsequent occasions: in 2011, to represent her son in a criminal matter; in 2015, to represent her regarding an order of protection; and again in 2015, to obtain for her grandparent visitation with her deceased son’s child. She could not explain why she hired Williams if he sexually assaulted her, other than to say she has low self-esteem and a history of abusive relationships and was emotionally vulnerable after her son died. The woman alleged Williams again sexually assaulted her during the course of her grandparent visitation case. He denied soliciting sex from her in exchange for any legal services. The woman ultimately saw a psychiatrist and filed a complaint against Williams. The chief disciplinary counsel charged Williams with violating certain rules of professional conduct for engaging in sexual relations with the woman during the course of his latter representations of her when they had no consensual sexual relationship prior to the lawyer-client relationship. During the disciplinary hearing, Williams denied sexually assaulting the woman in 2005 but admitted they had consensual sex. As to the allegations regarding his later representations of the woman, he denied having sex with her, forced or consensual. He also testified he was not aware of the extent of the woman’s past abusive relationships or mental health history. The woman also testified, but the disciplinary hearing panel found she was not a credible witness and recommended the case be dismissed. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s findings and recommendations and asks this Court to suspend Williams’ law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least one year. Williams asks the Court to find there is insufficient evidence to prove he is guilty of misconduct.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Williams violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
Listen to the oral argument: SC98245 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel’s office was represented during arguments by Special Representative Marc A. Lapp, an attorney in St. Louis; Williams, an attorney in St. Louis, represented himself.
In 2005, a woman hired Jennings attorney Gaylard Williams regarding a financial dispute over her purchase of a house. She previously had met him approximately 20 years earlier at a party but denied dating him or having consensual sexual relations with him at any time before he became her attorney. The woman has a history of being abused, first by her father and then by her former husband. She alleges Williams asked her to meet about a month after she retained him to sign some paperwork and forced her to have sex. The woman hired Williams on three subsequent occasions: in 2011, to represent her son in a criminal matter; in 2015, to represent her regarding an order of protection; and again in 2015, to obtain for her grandparent visitation with her deceased son’s child. She could not explain why she hired Williams if he sexually assaulted her, other than to say she has low self-esteem and a history of abusive relationships and was emotionally vulnerable after her son died. The woman alleged Williams again sexually assaulted her during the course of her grandparent visitation case. He denied soliciting sex from her in exchange for any legal services. The woman ultimately saw a psychiatrist and filed a complaint against Williams. The chief disciplinary counsel charged Williams with violating certain rules of professional conduct for engaging in sexual relations with the woman during the course of his latter representations of her when they had no consensual sexual relationship prior to the lawyer-client relationship. During the disciplinary hearing, Williams denied sexually assaulting the woman in 2005 but admitted they had consensual sex. As to the allegations regarding his later representations of the woman, he denied having sex with her, forced or consensual. He also testified he was not aware of the extent of the woman’s past abusive relationships or mental health history. The woman also testified, but the disciplinary hearing panel found she was not a credible witness and recommended the case be dismissed. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s findings and recommendations and asks this Court to suspend Williams’ law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least one year. Williams asks the Court to find there is insufficient evidence to prove he is guilty of misconduct.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Williams violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
Scheduled to begin at noon – SC98337
In re: Daniel G. Zarate
Clay County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC98337 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel’s office was represented during arguments by special Represenatative Charles W. Gotschall, an attorney in Kansas City; Zarate was represented by James C. Morrow of Morrow Willnauer Church LLC in Kansas City.
After investigating complaints filed by municipal judges and prosecutors in Kansas, Missouri’s chief disciplinary counsel initiated a disciplinary action against Daniel Zarate, a solo practitioner in Kansas City, alleging he has appeared as counsel of record in more than 1,100 cases in Kansas municipal courts despite never being licensed to practice law anywhere but Missouri and without disclosing to his clients he was not licensed to practice law in Kansas. Many of Zarate’s clients spoke only Spanish and had immigration or potential immigration issues. During the subsequent disciplinary hearing, the parties entered into a joint stipulation in which Zarate admitted violating rules of professional conduct by appearing in Kansas cases without a Kansas law license, without seeking admission as a visiting attorney and without local counsel and by using a Kansas attorney’s bar number without that attorney’s knowledge. The hearing panel found Zarate violated the rules as charged, noted he had taken responsibility for his actions and was remorseful, and recommended his law license be suspended with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least one year. Zarate accepted the panel’s recommendation, asking this Court to place him on probation or accept the panel’s recommendation. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s recommendation and now asks this Court to disbar Zarate.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Williams violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
Listen to the oral argument: SC98337 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel’s office was represented during arguments by special Represenatative Charles W. Gotschall, an attorney in Kansas City; Zarate was represented by James C. Morrow of Morrow Willnauer Church LLC in Kansas City.
After investigating complaints filed by municipal judges and prosecutors in Kansas, Missouri’s chief disciplinary counsel initiated a disciplinary action against Daniel Zarate, a solo practitioner in Kansas City, alleging he has appeared as counsel of record in more than 1,100 cases in Kansas municipal courts despite never being licensed to practice law anywhere but Missouri and without disclosing to his clients he was not licensed to practice law in Kansas. Many of Zarate’s clients spoke only Spanish and had immigration or potential immigration issues. During the subsequent disciplinary hearing, the parties entered into a joint stipulation in which Zarate admitted violating rules of professional conduct by appearing in Kansas cases without a Kansas law license, without seeking admission as a visiting attorney and without local counsel and by using a Kansas attorney’s bar number without that attorney’s knowledge. The hearing panel found Zarate violated the rules as charged, noted he had taken responsibility for his actions and was remorseful, and recommended his law license be suspended with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least one year. Zarate accepted the panel’s recommendation, asking this Court to place him on probation or accept the panel’s recommendation. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s recommendation and now asks this Court to disbar Zarate.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Williams violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.