Defendant Incarcerated Not Excuse for Failing to Respond to Complaint

Failure to Timely Respond to Complaint Requires Default Judgment

Post 4940
Timothy Ellis appealed the judgment of the Boone County Circuit Court. Ellis claimed the trial court erred in not setting aside a default judgment entered against him. In Sharon Cain And Ronald Cain v. Timothy S. Ellis, No. WD86884, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District (November 19, 2024) affirmed the trial court.

FACTS

Sharon and Ronald Cain ("the Cains") sued asserting a claim of negligence against Timothy Ellis. The claim pertained to a motor vehicle accident that occurred in February 2022. The Cains alleged that they suffered physical injuries, pain and suffering, and property damage as a result of Ellis's negligence.

Ellis was served on September 21, 2022 while he was incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections in Jefferson City. Ellis's answer was due on October 21, 2022. He did not file an answer.

The hearing on the interlocutory motion for order of default judgment was held on November 14, 2022. Neither Ellis nor counsel for Ellis appeared at the hearing. The trial court granted an interlocutory order of default judgment against Ellis by docket entry.

The trial court later heard testimony from the Cains and from a doctor. The trial court received exhibits into evidence. The trial court entered an order of default judgment against Ellis. The Cains were each awarded $1,500,000 for a total of $3,000,000.

Ellis filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion via a docket. Upon Ellis's request, the trial court entered judgment denying the motion to set aside default judgment.

ANALYSIS

The Cains argued that Ellis failed to demonstrate good cause. The Court of Appeals' concluded that Ellis' conclusory allegation that he was incarcerated did not satisfy the burden to show good cause. The Cains are elderly, aged 86 years old and 79 years old. They also stated that they would likely never recover money from Ellis but were in the process of pursuing a Tort Victims Compensation Fund award. They would not be eligible without a final money judgment against the tortfeasor. Finally, the Cains argued that Ellis lacked a meritorious defense.

Ellis provided no explanation for how being incarcerated prevented him from retaining counsel or filing an answer in response to the Cains' petition. Rather, Ellis essentially argued that being incarcerated was automatically good cause to be in default in court proceedings.

Counsel for the Cains argued that Ellis was still incarcerated when he retained counsel and filed the motion to set aside the default judgment.

Ellis did not take any steps at all in the thirty days after he was served with the summons and petition. The first action from Ellis reflected in the record is his motion to set aside the default judgment while he was still incarcerated.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ellis failed to show good cause for his failure to respond.

The Court of Appeals noted that it was mindful of the argument that our courts recognize the important policies favoring the resolution of lawsuits on the merits and disfavoring default judgments. However, there is a fundamental policy on which the administration of justice rests - that parties obey and respect orders of the court to appear or respond or otherwise to take some action.

ZALMA OPINION

If Ellis was insured that insurer would have - if it was told the suit had been filed - a lawyer to respond to the suit. The appellate decision does not mention the existence of insurance. Since the plaintiffs wish to seek payment from the Tort Victims Compensation Fund I can only assume Ellis was uninsured and that the Cains had no uninsured motorist coverage.  This case teaches that people should buy UM/UIM coverage at least equal to the limits available to third parties. This is a very frustrating case because both sides are victims. A $3 Million judgment was entered while Ellis was in jail and the Cains can recover none of it since he is essentially judgment proof the Cains did not protect themselves with UM/UIM coverage.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk