Case Name: TBF FINANCIAL, L.L.C., Appellant, v. Johnnie STONE, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2007-02-06
Citations: 213 S.W.3d 231
Docket Number: No. 27357
Parties: TBF FINANCIAL, L.L.C., Appellant, v. Johnnie STONE, Respondent.
Judges: PARRISH, J., dissents in separate opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 213
Pages: 231–234

Head Matter:
TBF FINANCIAL, L.L.C., Appellant, v. Johnnie STONE, Respondent.
No. 27357.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
Feb. 6, 2007.
Laura J. Johnson, Ellis, Ellis, Hammons & Johnson, Springfield, for Appellant.
Lewis Z. Bridges, Lake Ozark, for Respondent.

Opinion:
DANIEL E. SCOTT, Judge.
This case involves an associate circuit collection action against Johnnie Stone, and the confusion that arose when two Johnnie Stones were discovered. We reverse the judgment for Defendant and remand for new trial.
We could hardly overstate the confused state of the record before the trial court, and now before us. At trial, no witnesses were called and no exhibits were admitted. Prior to trial, Defendant never requested discovery, never provided discovery to Plaintiff, and never answered Plaintiff's petition. The unsworn statements of counsel, frequently contradictory or confusing, are virtually all we "know." Thus we proceed with trepidation to state the background, and beg indulgence for any misstatement.
Plaintiff sued "Defendant Johnnie Stone" for default under an equipment lease. Following personal service, defense counsel entered his appearance for "Defendant Johnnie Stone." Plaintiffs June 2005 interrogatories and requests for admissions were never answered, despite a stipulated time extension into August. During this period, apparently, defense counsel told Plaintiffs counsel there were two Johnnie Stones, a father ("Jr.") and a son ("III"). This sparked confusion about who signed the lease; made or missed payments; was served; was sued; or was represented by defense counsel.
The case came for trial September 28, 2005, with the confusion still unsettled. The attorneys appeared without witnesses, and joined in a continuance request, which was denied. The following dialogue occurred when the court asked if Plaintiff was ready to proceed:
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I am.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MS. JOHNSON: I would offer into evidence — May I approach the bench?
THE COURT: You may.
MS. JOHNSON: — Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, which is the request for admissions that we served upon Mr. Bridges and his client, Johnnie Stone. Those have not been responded to, therefore, they are deemed to be admitted. And in those request for admissions, the Defendant has admitted to having entered into the lease agreement — thank you — which was attached to the request for admissions. If I may approach again?
MR. BRIDGES: Your Honor, I would ask that Plaintiff clarify for us which Johnnie Stone she is taking judgment against, because I don't think we know yet.
MS. JOHNSON: Well, I know that the Johnnie Stone who Mr. Bridges represents is Johnnie Stone III. That is the Johnnie Stone who has entered an appearance in this action. He has waived service and entered an appearance in this action.
The hearing then devolved into spirited colloquy about the reigning confusion. The parties offered no more exhibits and called no witnesses. The court ultimately announced its decision as follows:
THE COURT: Court finds judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in this matter. Each and every one of these exhibits that you have presented to me you did not move to introduce into evidence; therefore, I find the Plaintiff has presented no evidence in this case and judgment is rendered for the Defendant.
The court twice made similar statements in its docket entry. But the earlier quoted record shows Plaintiff did offer, as Exhibit 1, matters admitted and conclusively established by operation of law under Rule 59.01(a). We will not replicate the admis sions here, but clearly they establish at least a prima facie case against "Defendant Johnnie Stone," who had been personally served according to the sheriff's return; in whose name defense counsel entered his appearance; on whose behalf defense counsel signed all court filings; and who failed to answer the Rule 59 requests sent to defense counsel.
A party who fails to respond to requests for admissions admits those matters. No further sanction is necessary or available to the proponent, who instead can use the admissions in dispositive motions or at trial, and a court must consider such admissions in deciding a motion for a directed verdict. Lee v. Ofield, 847 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Mo.App.1992). Such admissions, like admissions in pleadings, eliminate any need to further prove such matters. Rhodes v. Blair, 919 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.App.1996). Rhodes similarly involved a defendant who did not answer Rule 59 requests nor seek judicial relief from the resulting admissions, which plaintiffs presented to the trial court as part of their case. We ruled that those admissions conclusively established plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's liability therefor, which in turn compelled us to reverse the defendant's judgment as against the weight of the evidence and remand for further proceedings. Id. at 564-65.
The same reasoning applies here. A defendant named Johnnie Stone was sued and served. Defense counsel entered an appearance for "Defendant Johnnie Stone." The Rule 59 admissions offered by Plaintiff established at least a prima facie case against "Defendant Johnnie Stone," and eliminated Plaintiffs need to further prove such matters. Rhodes, 919 S.W.2d at 564. The trial court's error prejudiced Plaintiff, which necessitates a new trial at which Plaintiffs other points are unlikely to recur.
PARRISH, J., dissents in separate opinion.
RAHMEYER, P.J., concurs.
. The sheriff's return showed process delivered "to the defendant," described elsewhere on that page as "Johnnie Stone."
. Although the record often indicates he represented the son, defense counsel acknowledged at trial having also told Plaintiffs counsel he had authority to represent the father. Both court filings signed by defense counsel say he represents "Defendant Johnnie Stone."
. See note 2.
. Rule references are to Missouri Rules of Court (2005).