Masters v. Dawson

1

ETHEL BARRY MASTERS, Respondent, v. JACOB DAWSON, Appellant.

No. ED111696

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fifth Division

July 2, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 19SL-CC05392 Honorable Joseph L. Walsh III

OPINION

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, J.

Jacob Dawson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Ethel Barry Masters (Respondent) on her replevin action for five vehicles acquired during a long-term relationship between Respondent and Decedent, Appellant's father. Appellant raises six points on appeal. Points One and Two argue the trial court erred in entering partial summary judgment in favor of Respondent on possession because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Specifically, Appellant contends the probate division had exclusive jurisdiction because Decedent's estate claimed an ownership interest in the vehicles and was not made a party to the replevin action. Points Three, Four, Five, and Six allege the trial court erred in canceling Appellant's jury trial on damages as a sanction for his nonappearance at a pretrial conference in violation of his constitutional right to a jury trial. We find the trial court properly determined from the summary-judgment record that Respondent was entitled to immediate possession of the vehicles because ownership passed to her through sole ownership or right of survivorship, such that the vehicles did not belong to Decedent's estate nor was the estate a necessary or indispensable party. Consequently, we deny Points One and Two. However, we find that the trial court infringed on Appellant's constitutional right to have a jury determine damages for the replevin claim when it canceled his jury trial as a sanction for his nonappearance at a pretrial conference. Accordingly, we affirm the partial summary judgment and reverse the final judgment as to damages. We remand the cause to the circuit court to set the issues of actual and punitive damages on Respondent's replevin claim for a jury trial, and for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Background

This replevin action concerns five vehicles acquired during a long-term relationship between Respondent and Decedent. Respondent claimed sole ownership of one of the vehicles and either sole or joint ownership with Decedent of the remaining four vehicles. The vehicles were stored at Decedent's home and business property.

Following Decedent's death, Respondent sought possession of the vehicles from Appellant, Decedent's son, whom the trial court found had assumed possession of Decedent's home and business property. Respondent initially opened a probate action to acquire the vehicles, but the vehicles were not listed in the estate inventory. Respondent was advised by counsel to file a replevin action against Appellant. When Appellant was unable to be named the personal representative of Decedent's estate, Appellant's mother (Mother) took on the role. Mother filed an exhibit in the probate action listing the five disputed vehicles among other vehicles in a First Amended Inventory on November 21 2019^[1]-the same day that Respondent filed her Petition for replevin, conversion, and unjust enrichment against Appellant. The First Amended Inventory stated with respect to the valuation of all estate vehicles that in the event that Respondent's claims to the five vehicles were resolved in Respondent's favor, the value of Respondent's claim would be subtracted from the total vehicle valuation.

In her Petition for replevin, Respondent alleged she was entitled to immediate possession of the vehicles either as the sole owner or as the joint owner with the right of survivorship at the death of co-owner Decedent. Respondent acknowledged the open probate action and First Amended Inventory. Respondent alleged that Appellant refused to surrender possession of the vehicles. Appellant had filed a petition asking the Director of Revenue (DOR) to declare him as owner of one of the vehicles. Respondent claimed that Appellant fraudulently attempted to obtain title in his petition to DOR by changing one digit of the vehicle's VIN (vehicle identification number). Respondent further alleged that Mother amended the estate inventory to add the disputed vehicles at Appellant's behest despite Appellant having actual knowledge that the vehicles were either wholly owned by Respondent or owned by her in joint tenancy with Decedent.

Appellant moved to the dismiss Respondent's replevin action on the basis of the pending action doctrine pursuant to Rule 55.27(a)(9),^[2] arguing that the probate action constituted a pending action between the same parties for the same cause. The trial court denied the motion and directed Appellant to file his answer, in which he disputed ownership of four of the vehicles and conceded Respondent's ownership of one vehicle (the 1970 Porsche).

Respondent served Appellant with a request for admissions. Appellant did not respond to the request for admissions. The admissions included the following statements: (1) Appellant had the vehicles in his exclusive possession, custody, or control; (2) Respondent's exhibits pertaining to title and ownership of the vehicles were true and accurate copies and Appellant was aware of no other subsequent title documents; (3) Appellant was not involved in the purchase of the vehicles and was not listed on any of the titles; (4) Appellant was not aware of any document purporting to pass the title of any of the vehicles to him by Decedent; (5) Appellant's retention of the vehicles was done without justification or excuse, in that he knew he had no legal title to the vehicles; and (6) Respondent was entitled to possession of the vehicles. Pursuant to the trial court's orders, Appellant released the 1970 Porsche to Respondent and submitted to an inspection of the remaining four vehicles.

In August of 2021, Respondent moved for partial summary judgment on her entitlement to possession of the remaining four vehicles. To support her uncontroverted statement of facts and prove her claims of superior title, her entitlement to possession, and Appellant's current possession Respondent submitted an affidavit attesting to ownership and referenced the exhibits of the certificates of title and bills of sale of the vehicles. Respondent also attached her unanswered request for admissions and argued that Appellant's failure to respond resulted in the facts therein being admitted pursuant to Rule 59.01.

Appellant did not timely respond to the summary-judgment motion under Rule 74.04(c). Appellant sought leave from the trial court to untimely file responses to both the request for admissions and the summary-judgment motion, which the trial court granted. Appellant subsequently filed a response to Respondent's statement of uncontroverted facts, which was his sole summary-judgment filing. Appellant supported each of his denials by referring to attached exhibits, including Exhibit D, which purported to contain his response to the request for admissions that he reasoned negated the legal justification for deeming the statements admitted.

However, no Exhibit D was filed with the trial court and, as such, the statements in the request for admission were deemed admitted into the record. Additionally, Appellant referenced a pending petition for discovery of the assets in the probate estate, but no such petition had been filed.

Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order of partial summary judgment in favor of Respondent on November 2, 2021 (Partial Summary Judgment). The trial court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Respondent demonstrated the legal right to possession of the vehicles by virtue of their nonprobate transfer to her. The trial court reserved the issue of damages for a bench trial. The trial court ordered Appellant to immediately surrender the four vehicles to Respondent.

Appellant did not immediately surrender the vehicles. On the date agreed upon for Respondent to take possession, Appellant denied access to the vehicles by barricading them to prevent towing. Appellant's then-attorney subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw. Respondent moved for the trial court to hold Appellant in contempt for failing to turn over possession of the vehicles in compliance with the order of Partial Summary Judgment. Respondent alleged that after counsel for both parties agreed to facilitate recovery of the vehicles, Appellant refused to surrender the vehicles through various means, including making himself unavailable at the agreed-upon dates, avoiding communication, blockading the vehicles to prevent their towing, hiding the keys, along with other conduct that Respondent alleged was intentionally violative of the trial court's orders. Subsequently, Appellant retained new counsel, and Respondent's contempt motion came before a different division of the circuit court, where the motion was denied.

Respondent obtained writs of replevin, which were executed by the Sheriff of St. Louis County. Appellant's then-counsel sought and was granted leave to withdraw. Several months later, new counsel entered for Appellant and moved for a continuance. The trial court scheduled a bench trial on damages, then Appellant filed his demand for a jury trial on damages.

The trial court set the cause for a jury trial on February 27 2023 with a pretrial conference to be held on February 23, 2023. A copy of the order was sent to all attorneys of record. Appellant's then-attorney sought leave to withdraw, and his motion to withdraw- attached to an email received by Appellant-noted the upcoming dates of the pretrial conference and trial. Although Appellant received and read the body of the email indicating his...