Court Opinion

ID: 9597666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:01:42.006717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:38.975525
License: Public Domain

*236RONNIE L. WHITE, Chief Justice,
dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent. This is not a difficult case. TWA simply did not perfect its motion to transfer and waived venue.
Proper venue is a personal privilege, and objection on the basis of improper venue may be waived.1 The party challenging venue bears the burden of persuasion and proof that venue is improper.2 In addition to simply fifing a motion for transfer of venue a party must perfect that motion with substantive evidence because unsworn statements by counsel or statements in briefs are not evidence, unless conceded to by opposing counsel.3
TWA elected to submit a document signed by Michael J. Lichty to support its motion to transfer. The principal opinion continually refers to this document as being an “affidavit.” In reality, no affidavit was ever filed with the trial court. An affidavit is a written declaration on oath sworn to by a person before someone authorized to administer such oath.4 Lacking the required notarization, Mr. Lichty’s written statement is nothing more than hearsay and is not competent evidence. 5
The procedure for fifing supporting affidavits with a motion is clearly set out in Rule 44.01(d). Rule 44.01(d) requires supporting affidavits to be served with the motion, period. An affidavit filed by the movant after the initial fifing need not be considered at all, even if it is filed on the day of the motion hearing.6 While an untimely affidavit need not be considered at all, the trial court, in its discretion would be free to grant a motion for an extension of time to amend an incompetent document or a motion for leave to amend the transfer motion in general.
TWA did not file a proper motion for transfer of venue supported with competent evidence. TWA did not even file a supporting affidavit for its transfer motion. TWA did not request any extension of time or seek leave to amend its transfer motion until after the trial court issued its order denying transfer, even though the issue about the written hearsay statement was raised during the motion hearing. It is difficult to accept that TWA was unaware of its failure when the pre-stamped notary signature block on its document, which appeared on the very same page of the document as Mr. Lichty’s signature, remained starkly and obviously empty.
From the date the lawsuit was filed, January 10, 2001, until the date when TWA filed its motion for transfer on July 7, 2003, TWA had 908 days to perfect its motion by means of a simple notarization. From the date when the motion was filed, July 7, 2003, until the date of the hearing, *237December 8, 2008, TWA had an additional 154 days to seek leave to amend so it would have filed a proper motion for transfer. From the date of the motion hearing, December 8, 2003, until the date when the court issued its order, March 9, 2004, TWA had an additional 91 days to seek leave of the court to perfect its motion. In total, TWA had 1153 days (3 years and 58 days) to contemplate, prepare, draft, and perfect its two-page motion for transfer and its two-page affidavit.
Lacking any applicable law or court rules, the principal opinion references Rule 55.33, having no application to motions, and a version of Rule 51.045, not in effect at the time of the trial court’s ruling, in order to support its decision.7 The opinion miraculously concludes that TWA showed “good cause” to justify its late filing of an affidavit in support of its transfer motion, whereas a simple “reality check” confirms that TWA’s extremely prolonged failure to file a supporting affidavit for its motion could not even remotely constitute “good cause.” Apparently, under the principal opinion’s analysis, non-compliance with the rules of procedure and evidence is excusable upon request of an extraordinary writ.
TWA simply failed to file a proper motion for transfer and as such waived venue. Under these facts, I would not find any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge for overruling TWA’s motion to transfer or overruling its motion to amend the transfer motion to permit the outrageously late attempt at filing a supporting affidavit. I would quash the preliminary writ.

. Rules 51.045(a), 55.08 and 55.27; Mogley v. Fleming, 11 S.W.3d 740, 746 (Mo.App. 1999); Reece v. Reece, 890 S.W.2d 706, 712 (Mo.App. 1995); State ex rel. Uptergrove v. Russell, 871 S.W.2d 27, 29-30 (Mo.App.1993).

. State ex rel. Etter, Inc. v. Neill, 70 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Mo.App.2002); Coale v. Grady Brothers Siding and Remodeling, Inc., 865 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Mo.App. 1993); Cuba’s United Ready Mix v. Bock Concrete, 785 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Mo.App. 1990).

. State ex rel. Dixon v. Damold, 939 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Mo.App.1997).

. Hinton v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Mo.App.2003).

. Id.; Mueller v. Bauer, 54 S.W.3d 652, 657 (Mo.App.2001); Fitzpatrick v. Hoehn, 746 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Mo.App. 1988); United Labor Committee of Missouri v. Kirkpatrick, 572 S.W.2d 449, 462 (Mo. 1978).

. Rule 44.01(d); Stavrides v. Zerjav, 848 S.W.2d 523, 530 (Mo.App. 1993); Kennedy v. Empire Gas Co., Inc., 756 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Mo.App.1988).

. Rule 55.33, entitled, "Amended and Supplemental Pleadings,” cited by the majority for the proposition that leave to amend this transfer motion should be freely granted, applies only to pleadings. Motions concerning procedural matters do not constitute "pleadings.” Rule 55.01; Wulff v. Kakadiaris, 856 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.App. 1993); Olson v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 700 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo.App. 1985); State v. James, 347 S.W.2d 211 (Mo. 1961); Smith v. Smith, 327 Mo. 632, 37 S.W.2d 902, 904 (1931); Graff v. Dougherty, 139 Mo.App. 56, 120 S.W. 661, 662 (1909)(overruled on other grounds in Schneider v. Schneider, 273 S.W. 1081, 1083 (Mo.App. 1925)). It is, in fact, "beyond question that motions are treated as separate and different from the 'pleadings.' ” Harris v. Nola, 537 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Mo.App. 1976). "Moreover, others of the Rules of Civil Procedure reflect a careful distinction between the use of the term 'pleading' as opposed to the term 'motion.' Thus Rule 55.01 lists the different kinds of pleadings, and does not include any mention of motions.” Id.