Tag Archives: Missouri

Pen-raised whitetail deer are domestic animals, under Missouri law


If a court told me that I had to kill my dog for killing a deer, I’d be upset. But it could happen.

When a dog kills or maims a “domestic animal” in Missouri,  the statutory penalties (section 273.020 RSMo) are harsh. The owner or keeper of the bad dog is liable for the full amount of monetary damages and is obligated to kill the bad dog. But can whitetail deer be considered domestic animals?

Three dogs, alleged to have been owned by Lange, broke into Oak Creek’s pen and killed 21 bucks, does and fawns, all hand-raised and kept for the ultimate purpose of creating bucks with massive racks. When Oak Creek sued Lange, Lange asked the court to rule, in a motion for summary judgment, that the words “sheep and other domestic animals” in section 273.020 applied to livestock typically raised on farms, such as cattle, swine, chickens and horses.

The Missouri court of appeals in Oak Creek Whitetail Ranch v. Lange disagreed with the Osage County trial judge, looking to a dictionary definition, which included the phrase “which have been domesticated by man so as to live and breed in a tame condition.” The court of appeals noted that the slain deer had never been in the wild, but “were all penned and hand-fed, raised in an environment that did not allow them to move freely beyond their confined area.”  The court’s logic is apparently that whether an animal (other than a sheep) is domestic is determined by the individual animal’s status, not the species. Oak Creek’s deer were apparently defenseless in their confinement, unable to flee and perhaps unable to survive in the wild. Cats, dogs and hogs often become feral, regardless of their previous condition of confinement.

The offspring of breeding stock, such as those killed in Oak Creek’s pen, are apparently not domestic animals when placed on game ranches to be killed by trophy-seeking hunters, who pay handsomely for the privilege of slaughtering them. You can see an example of the ideal rack on the Farming for Wildlife website.

My neighbor fenced in my backyard!


The rear of the Grossmans’ backyard had several trees and a culvert along the property line. When they put up a privacy fence in 1994, they didn’t enclose a nine-foot strip across the rear. The St. Johns moved into the house on the lot that shared the rear line of Grossmans’ lot in 2004, and the St. Johns began to maintain that nine-foot strip along with their own backyard, removing debris and even laying sod.

In 2008, the St. Johns fenced in their backyard and extended their fence across the nine-foot strip to a point five inches from the Grossmans’ fence. The Grossmans’ attorney sent a letter to the St. Johns, asking that they remove their fence and discontinue using the nine-foot strip.

The Grossmans sued the St. Johns for trespass, also asking for an injunction to force the St. Johns to remove the portion of the St. Johns’ fence on the Grossmans’ property. The St. Johns countersued, seeking reimbursement for their maintenance and repairs of the nine-foot strip.

Trespass under Missouri law, in a civil case, requires the plaintiff to prove unauthorized entry onto the property of another, regardless of damages and regardless of good faith, reasonable care, ignorance or mistake of law or fact.  Missouri law also allows the defense of consent of the complaining property owner, whose consent may be implied by custom, usage or conduct. Proof of damages resulting from the trespass is not required, but monetary damages can be recovered if proved.

At the trial, Mr. Grossman testified that he was aware that the St. Johns installed solar lights, plants and concrete benches on the nine-foot strip and admitted that it didn’t bother him. The St. Johns argued that this admission was proof of implied consent.

The trial court found for the St. Johns on the trespass charge, apparently accepting the argument of implied consent. The trial court also rejected the St. Johns’ counterclaim for reimbursement of their costs of repairs and maintenance. The Grossmans appealed; the St. Johns did not.

The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in Grossman v. St. John reverses the trial court, stating that the judgment in favor of the St. Johns on the injunction and trespass claims was “against the weight of the evidence and was erroneous.”

In other words, there was inadequate evidence in the record of the trial to show that the Grossmans had consented to the erection of the fence, even though they may have initially consented to the use of the nine-foot strip by the St. Johns. That consent was revoked by the letter from Grossmans’ lawyer. By ignoring the undisputed revocation of consent, the judge made an error.

Please note that the use of Grossmans’ property by the St. Johns only lasted for four years. Had the use continued for 10 years, the St. Johns would not have been arguing consent–they would state that they used the property openly and without consent, thereby entitling them to title by adverse possession. The Grossmans’ suit was necessary to protect their property from such a claim.

When you sue, you’d better ask for everything


Johnny Ray Chadd was the city administrator for Lake Ozark. City administrators in Missouri are always a vote or two away from getting fired, and Chadd was on the brink. On a vote to fire him in 2005, after he had served less than one year, the aldermen were deadlocked and the mayor cast the tie-breaking vote to let him go.

Chadd sued, claiming that the applicable Missouri statute and the city ordinance required the vote of a majority of the aldermen to remove him as a city officer. The mayor’s vote was irrelevant. In 2007, the appellate court ordered that Chadd be reinstated. He was rehired and immediately fired by the unanimous vote of the aldermen.

Chadd sued again, seeking back wages for the period between his first firing and the second, also alleging that he was wrongfully terminated. Apparently because Missouri law characterizes the employment relationship as at the will of the employer, Chadd alleged that his termination fell under the vague term “prima facie tort,” a legal theory that has never gotten any traction in Missouri courts.

The trial court threw out Chadd’s suit on Lake Ozark’s motion for summary judgment.

Chadd didn’t sue for back wages in the first suit, so he was barred from bringing up the issue now under the principle of res judicata. This principle means that courts will not consider claims that either were or could have been raised in a previous suit between the same parties. The trial court indicated that Chadd had been obligated make his claim for back wages in his first suit, where he was successful.

The prima facie tort claim also failed. Missouri’s at-will employment doctrine applies to situations where there is no employment contract for a specific term. A worker cannot win a suit for damages resulting from termination unless the termination violates some other statute, such as a statute protecting whistle-blowers or persons who are fired for filing workers’ compensation or racial discrimination claims, for example.  Calling a wrongful termination claim a prima facie tort doesn’t get around the at-will employment doctrine.

The Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment in this opinion, Chadd v. Lake Ozark.

Partition: not always an equal division of real estate


No house is big enough for two couples, my mother told me long ago. Especially when one couple pays for nearly everything.

When the non-paying couple asked the court to divide the house, a Missouri court left them out in the cold. They appealed, and the court’s decision in Hoit v. Rankin indicates Read the rest of this entry

Getting outside in the Ozarks


Within a week, the heat wave will have run its course and we’ll surely have a little rain. Then we can get moving again in the wonderful Ozarks outdoors and watch the greens become gold, orange and red.

Here are some links for outdoor activities Read the rest of this entry

LegalZoom.com sued in Missouri class action: maybe now we’ll find out what the practice of law really is


What do lawyers do? In other words, what is the scope of the lawyer racket?

A suit filed in December 2009 in Cole County Circuit Court in December 2009 may give us some idea of whether LegalZoom’s document-generation service overlaps the practice of law in Missouri. LegalZoom has filed a motion to move the suit into federal court.

LegalZoom.com., Inc. takes information from its customers and uses that information to complete documents, which it sells to those customers. In some ways, it’s a web-based version of the books of forms that have been available in paper form for hundreds of years and in digital form for 30 years or more.

The lawsuit was filed by persons who used LegalZoom for the preparation of a will and organizational documents for a limited liability company. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify that they were representatives of all Missouri residents who have done business with LegalZoom. The plaintiffs and their lawyers want Read the rest of this entry

Ozarks economic outlook for 2010


As with any identifiable region, the Ozarks’ economy is a partly a product of adjacent economies interacting with internal and external forces. A survey of the metro areas that ring the Ozarks may give us a hint about what to expect for the future. The economic engines within the Ozarks also deserve a look. This long essay will yield the conclusion that 2009 will be a year of Read the rest of this entry

Missouri PSC asserts jurisdiction over one tiny utility company, but many others escape


Water and sewer services to residences and businesses are essential. Most of us take for granted that the operations of those who provide these services are reliable and are regulated. In reality, many water and sewer providers fall through several holes in Missouri’s statutory framework of regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC).

DNR’s regulations

DNR sets engineering standards for water wells, treatment and storage facilities, and distribution systems (mains and valves). DNR licenses well drillers and maintains a registry describing each water well, based on data required to be submitted by well drillers. DNR does not regulate rates charged by water sellers, but does require that permanent entity (called a “continuing authority”) be established for each water system serving more than 15 users. A continuing authority for water is required to show DNR that it has the technical, managerial and financial capacity to operate the system, or at least that’s what the rules say. DNR implements its regulations by requiring submittal of engineering plans for the issuance of construction permits and certfications from private engineers that water and sewer facilities are completed according to the approved plans before issuance of operating and discharge permits. DNR also licenses operators of water and sewer facilities. Read the rest of this entry

Table Rock Lake and the cost of economic activity

Posted on

Kathleen O’Dell’s article about the economic impact of Table Rock Lake in today’s Springfield News-Leader, entitled “Table Rock Dam Gives Much Back to Area,” covers a lot of ground in describing the various kinds of economic activities that are related to the construction and continued existence of Table Rock Lake.

In an economic sense, is the Table Rock Lake area fit (efficient and nimble) or obese (expensive to maintain and subject to falls)? As pointed out below, the two counties most affected by Table Rock Lake have experienced the area’s lowest growth in Read the rest of this entry

Decorating and undecorating graves

Posted on

Objects on a tombstone

The weather was rainy in much of the Ozarks today, so I was glad that I had visited cemeteries of mine and my wife’s ancestors on Friday and Sunday.

Pam’s comment to my previous post mentioned the custom of leaving small stones on a tombstone to indicate that a visit was made. I have not seen this, but I saw the arrangement above on a tombstone at Snowdenville Cemetery in eastern Madison County, Missouri, which could have been the work of a groundskeeper who picked up things ahead of the mowers, or it could have been a loving tribute.

When I was sixteen or seventeen, I was hired to mow the Newtonia IOOF Cemetery in Newton County, Missouri. Removing the artificial flowers and the containers of real and artificial flowers, with lots of wire and accessories, was a tedious job, especially for a self-important teenager. In preparing the cemetery for Memorial Day, my mower frequently hit those items as I plowed through the thick spring grass, leaving me to pick up the shredded plaster and plastic pots and unwind the wires from my mower blade.

Many of those paid and unpaid people who maintain cemeteries would be able to do their work more safely and easily if those who leave items would make another visit to pick up those items. These items are decorative for only a few days.