The Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals today upheld the City of Joplin's victory in its lawsuit against Wallace-Bajjali.
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected Costa Bajjali's attempt to throw out the $1,475,000 default judgment handed down at the trial level by Jasper County Circuit Court Judge Gayle Crane.
The trial was held without the defendants present. Bajjali claimed he had never been informed about the trial and had no opportunity to defend himself.
The text of the court's opinion is printed below:
AFFIRMED
Wallace Bajjali Development Partners, L.P. ("Wallace Bajjali") appeals
from the trial court's denial of its Rule 74.05(d) motion to set aside a default
judgment.
Wallace Bajjali argues the trial court erred in denying its motion to
set aside the default judgment. Although framed as one point, Wallace Bajjali's
argument has two prongs.
First, Wallace Bajjali claims the trial court did not
apply the correct legal standard because it did not mention Rule 74.05(d) in its judgment.
Second, Wallace Bajjali argues the trial court did not apply the correct
legal standard because "the evidence submitted to the trial court established good
cause and a meritorious defense[.]"
We disagree and affirm the trial court's
judgment.
Procedural Background
In 2015, the City of Joplin and the Joplin Redevelopment Corp., Inc.
(collectively, "Joplin") filed a lawsuit against Wallace Bajjali, seeking relief under
various legal theories based on allegations that Wallace Bajjali had stopped
performance under two related contracts after receiving $1,475,000 from Joplin.
A return of service was filed indicating that a copy of the summons and petition
was delivered to Wallace Bajjali's registered agent, CT Corporation ("CT").
Because Wallace Bajjali had changed its address without informing CT, CT never
forwarded the summons and petition to Wallace Bajjali. Nevertheless, the trial
court thereafter entered a default judgment against Wallace Bajjali in the amount
of $1,475,000.
On June 12, 2015, Wallace Bajjali filed a motion for new trial. Wallace Bajjali has, in this proceeding, filed a motion to strike Joplin's supplemental legal
file and the transcript of the hearing regarding the motion for new trial.
Wallace Bajjali argues
those materials are not properly part of the record on appeal because a motion to set aside a
default judgment is an independent action and the transcript and the documents in the
supplemental legal file were never submitted to the trial court for consideration in connection
with the motion to set aside the default judgment.
This Court ordered the motion to strike taken
with the case.
Here, no live testimony was presented at the hearing regarding the motion to set aside the
default judgment. However, both parties discussed various items of evidence.
Wallace Bajjali
relied on the affidavits and exhibits it submitted in support of the motion to set aside the default
judgment. Joplin, in turn, suggested the trial court should consider the testimony Wallace
Bajjali's managing partner gave in support of the motion for new trial and the conflicts between
that testimony and the evidence submitted in support of the motion to set aside the default
judgment.
Wallace Bajjali did not object when Joplin's attorney suggested the trial court consider
that evidence. Because Wallace Bajjali acquiesced in the procedure in the trial court, Wallace
Bajjali is in no position to complain here. Wallace Bajjali's motion to strike is denied.
Among other things, Wallace Bajjali claimed in the motion for new trial that service was
improper because Wallace Bajjali had never actually received the summons and
petition from CT.
On August 28, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment
denying Wallace Bajjali's motion for new trial ("the 2015 judgment"). The trial
court found service was proper because it was made on Wallace Bajjali's
registered agent.
On November 1, 2015, Wallace Bajjali filed a motion to set aside the
default judgment under Rule 74.05(d). In the motion to set aside the default
judgment, Wallace Bajjali pleaded it had good cause for failing to respond to
Joplin's lawsuit because Wallace Bajjali never actually received the summons and
petition from CT.
On August 18, 2016, the trial court entered a judgment ("the
2016 judgment") denying the motion to set aside the default judgment. The 2016
judgment incorporated the 2015 judgment but made no further findings of fact or
conclusions of law. Wallace Bajjali appeals.
Discussion
In its sole point relied on, Wallace Bajjali claims the trial court "failed to
apply the correct legal standard and never determined the issues of good cause
and a meritorious defense under Rule 74.05(d)" because (1) the trial court did not
mention Rule 74.05(d) in its judgment and (2) "the evidence submitted to the
trial court established good cause and a meritorious defense to the action[.]"
These arguments fail because they ignore the application of Rule 73.01 and our
standard of review.
We first address Wallace Bajjali's assertion that the trial court failed to
apply the correct legal standard because the trial court did not mention Rule
4
74.05(d) in its judgment.
Rule 74.05(d) permits a trial court to set aside a default
judgment "[u]pon motion stating facts constituting a meritorious defense and for
good cause shown[.]" Brungard v. Risky's Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Mo.
banc 2007) (quoting Rule 74.05(d)).
Additionally, "Rule 74.05 does not require
the trial court to state a reason for denying a motion to set aside a default
judgment." Under such circumstances,
parties who want to know how the trial court resolved various issues "have the
ability to request written findings of fact." However, "[w]here neither party in a court-tried case
requests findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 73.01(c), the trial
court's stated findings and conclusions for its judgment are gratuitous only." Moreover,
"[a]ll fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as
having been found in accordance with the result reached."
And
as for the application of the law, '[t]he trial court is presumed to know the law.'".
Nowhere in the record are we able to find a request for findings pursuant
to Rule 73.01. Thus, we rely on the presumption created by Rule 73.01(c) and the
applicable case law to determine how the trial court resolved issues which it did
not mention in its judgment.
The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default judgment, so, in accordance with that result, the law presumes the trial
court found Wallace Bajjali failed to meet its burden.
We next address Wallace Bajjali's argument that the trial court failed to
apply the correct legal standard because the evidence showed good cause and a
meritorious defense. This argument fails.
The first reason the argument fails is that it is not preserved for appellate
review. A challenge that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence
is distinct from a challenge alleging that the trial court failed to apply the correct
legal principles. However, "[a] point relied on should contain only one issue, and
parties should not group multiple contentions about different issues together into
one point relied on."
Here, Wallace Bajjali, by including in its point relied on the
language about what the evidence showed, attempts to package a not-supported-by-the-evidence
challenge within the distinct challenge that the trial court failed
to apply the correct legal standard. That approach renders the point
multifarious.
We may, however, in our discretion, review multifarious points ex gratia.
In doing so here, we conclude Wallace Bajjali’s
argument that its evidence established good cause and a meritorious defense is
without merit because it is based on a false premise that the trial court was
required to believe the evidence Wallace Bajjali presented.
The trial court is the finder of fact, and this Court is merely a court of
review for trial court errors. "In reviewing questions of fact, the reviewing court will
defer to the trial court's assessment of the evidence if any facts relevant to an
issue are contested."[A] party can contest the
evidence in many ways, such as by putting forth contrary evidence, cross examining
a witness, challenging the credibility of a witness, pointing out
inconsistencies in evidence, or arguing the meaning of the evidence."
"Once
contested, 'a trial court is free to disbelieve any, all, or none of th[e] evidence,'
and 'the appellate court's role is not to re-evaluate testimony through its own
perspective.'" Here, despite Wallace Bajjali's assertions to the contrary, the evidence was
contested.
At the hearing regarding the motion to set aside the default judgment,
Joplin's attorney first suggested the trial court need not believe Wallace Bajjali's
evidence and then argued about the meaning of the evidence Wallace Bajjali had
presented.
Because the evidence was contested, the trial court was not required
to believe any of the evidence. Under those circumstances, the fact that the
trial court did not believe the evidence does not show it failed to apply the correct
legal standard.
Wallace Bajjali has not demonstrated the trial court failed to apply the
correct legal standard. Wallace Bajjali's sole point is denied.
Decision
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
1 comment:
That's a good uphold judgement!
When the Hell does Bajalli run out of money to keep paying his lawyers?
Harvey Hutchinson 303-522-6622 voice&text 24/7
Post a Comment