Setzer v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Setzer v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY

353 S.W.3d 99, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1279

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

DocketED 96308

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 S.W.3d 99 (Setzer v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Setzer v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, 353 S.W.3d 99, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Setzer (hereinafter, “Setzer”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment setting aside a default judgment entered against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (hereinafter, “Respondent”) and Security Title Insurance Agency, LLC. Setzer raises three points on appeal, claiming Respondent’s Rule 74.05 motion was deficient in that Respondent has no meritorious defense which would warrant setting aside the default judgment.

Setting aside a default judgment by a trial court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Callahan, 277 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2009). “Missouri appellate courts have traditionally afforded significant deference to the circuit court’s decision to set aside a default judgment because of the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits and the ‘distaste our system holds for default judgments.’ ” Brungard v. Risky’s Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting Cont’l Basketball Ass’n v. Harrisburg Prof'l Sports Inc., 947 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Mo.App. E.D.1997)).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Setzer (hereinafter, “Setzer”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment setting aside a default judgment entered against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (hereinafter, “Respondent”) and Security Title Insurance Agency, LLC. Setzer raises three points on appeal, claiming Respondent’s Rule 74.05 motion was deficient in that Respondent has no meritorious defense which would warrant setting aside the default judgment.

Setting aside a default judgment by a trial court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Callahan, 277 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2009). “Missouri appellate courts have traditionally afforded significant deference to the circuit court’s decision to set aside a default judgment because of the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits and the ‘distaste our system holds for default judgments.’ ” Brungard v. Risky’s Inc., 240 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting Cont’l Basketball Ass’n v. Harrisburg Prof'l Sports Inc., 947 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Mo.App. E.D.1997)).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 99, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/setzer-v-stewart-title-guaranty-company-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack