Missouri case law update 08/10/2011

Welcome to our blog -- devoted to keeping the public updated about case law rulings or new developments in the family law arena.   There were a few notable cases the week of August 9, 2011.  Notable Eastern District cases (which includes St. Louis City and County) include:

• State ex rel Thompson v. Joseph Dueker, ED96570, in this case a client sought an order barring the Court from enforcing its prior order granting a client's attorney's motion to withdraw.  In a 2006 divorce Husband met with an attorney with the Schechter Law Firm but hired other counsel. In 2010 Husband hired another firm to file a motion to modify maintenance and Wife hired the attorney who first met with Husband back in 2006 (but not hired).  Husband sought to disqualify the Schechter Law Firm on the basis of conflict of interest since Husband had met with the firm and considered himself a former client.  While Husband paid a consultation fee, he never signed an engagement agreement and never hired Schechter to represent him in either proceeding.  While the trial court disqualified the lawyer, the Court of Appeals (in a thorough opinion) reversed the order disqualifying counsel while holding that Husband had not become a client with Schechter just by having a consultation. 
• Reppy v. Winters, WD72923.  In this non-family law casse the Western District addressed a motion to enforce settlement.  Settlements are common in divorces (and settlements which implode are also common) so this case may be helpful in family law arena.  In this personal injury type case, the settlement blew up over language for personal indemnification of medical liens (common when health insurance covered medical costs for a personal injury which later goes to litigation). The party seeking to enforce the settlement had the burden to prove the existence of a settlement by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. "A [settlement] contract does not exist without a definite offer and a 'mirror-image' acceptance.'" The Court also noted that the proposed language expected counsel to cover the lien - not just the client (who received the medical care).  The Court found that the parties didn't have a meeting of the minds for the acceptance -- and since the parties were on different pages that there was no settlement agreement so the case was reversed.
• Felderman v. Zweifel as Trustee, WD72687.  In this action to divide real estate (known as partition) the Court affirmed the trial court. In this case Wife maried in 2002 and divorced in 2004.  In 2006 Wife went to Missouri at Husband's invitation and they lived in Husband's home.  In 2007 Husband signed a deed conveying real estate from himself (as a single person) to himself and ex-wife (single persons) as joint tenants with right of survivorship [Right of survivorship means that upon the death of one party the entire estate goes to the remaining tenant and not to the heirs of the one who died].  These deeds were recorded in 2007.  In 2009 ex-Wife filed a motion to divide the property and Husband also filed a cross-action.  The trial court found that ex-Husband intended to gift (called "donative intent") 1/2 of the property to ex-Wife and she was entitled to 50% of the proceeds upon sale.  The Court held:
• First, there is a presumption that co-tenants hold equal ownership shares in property in the face of an otherwise silent deed.
• Second, the trial court considers relevant evidence to determine whether the presumption of equal ownership has been rebutted.