From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Letko Enterprises, Inc. v. Bond

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
Feb 13, 2001
41 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED77428

Filed: February 13, 2001 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 19, 2001.

Application to Transfer Denied April 24, 2001.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, HON. PATRICK CLIFFORD.

Irl B. Baris, John M. Baris, BARIS LAW FIRM, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

William E. Albrecht, St. Louis, MO, Timothy W. Kelly, Ferguson, MO, for respondent.

Before: Lawrence E. Mooney, P.J. and Paul J. Simon and Sherri B. Sullivan, JJ.

ORDER



Plaintiffs, Letko Enterprises, Inc., Mark Letko and Annette Letko (collectively "Plaintiffs"), appeal the St. Louis County Circuit Court's judgments granting Defendants Kenneth Bond's and Gwendolyn Bond's motions to set aside default judgments obtained by Plaintiffs for specific performance of contract, accounting and damages. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by: (1) setting aside the default judgments because the Bonds did not meet the requirements of Rule 74.05(d) in that their motions and evidence did not state facts constituting a meritorious defense, did not show good cause and were not made within a reasonable time after entry of the default judgment; furthermore, Rule 74.06(b) is not applicable to the facts of this case; (2) denying Plaintiffs application for an award of attorney's fees because the denial was an abuse of discretion in that attorney's fees to defend a motion to set aside a default judgment may be awarded pursuant to Rule 74.05(d); and (3) setting aside the default judgment because it was without jurisdiction to do so in that the Bonds' motions were authorized after trial motions over which the trial court retained control for a period of 90 days. Therefore, the Bonds' motions were overruled pursuant to Rules 78.06 and 81.05 after the expiration of the 90 day period.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Letko Enterprises, Inc. v. Bond

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
Feb 13, 2001
41 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Letko Enterprises, Inc. v. Bond

Case Details

Full title:LETKO ENTERPRISES, INC., MARK LETKO and ANNETTE LETKO, Appellants v…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four

Date published: Feb 13, 2001

Citations

41 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)