Background
Mindy Reaves sued her former landlord, P. Harvey’s Mold Lady and Construction Services, LLC, alleging serious medical injuries from mold in a rented home. After unsuccessful attempts to serve the LLC’s Missouri registered agent, Judith Bray, Reaves located her in Scotland and obtained service through Scotland’s Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention.
The LLC did not respond, and the St. Louis County Circuit Court entered a default judgment in 2022 awarding $87 million. The court later corrected the LLC’s name from “P Harvey” to “P. Harvey’s.” In 2023, after garnishment issued, the LLC moved under Missouri Rule 74.06(b)(4) to vacate the judgment as void, challenging service, the name correction, and the damages procedure. The circuit court granted the motion without stating its reason.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed. It held that the Hague Convention applied because Reaves needed to transmit process abroad to reach the LLC’s registered agent; Missouri law’s authorization to serve the Secretary of State did not make that method mandatory. Scotland’s Central Authority returned a completed Hague Convention certificate confirming service, which was prima facie evidence of valid service.
The LLC did not rebut that evidence by showing lack of actual notice or prejudice. Its registered agent acknowledged that papers were delivered to a mailbox connected to a business she had operated, and the LLC’s Scottish-law opinion letter was unsworn. The minor error in the LLC’s name was a correctable misnomer, not service on the wrong entity. Nor did the damages process render the judgment void: the LLC had notice and an opportunity to be heard but defaulted, and Reaves submitted an affidavit supporting damages. Any challenge to the amount or sufficiency of evidence was not a basis to declare the judgment void under Rule 74.06(b)(4).
Key Takeaways
- A completed Hague Convention certificate from a foreign Central Authority is prima facie evidence of proper service.
- A party seeking to vacate a judgment as void bears the burden to establish a jurisdictional or due-process defect.
- An alleged error in a default damages award does not itself make the judgment void under Rule 74.06(b)(4).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the narrow scope of Missouri’s void-judgment rule. Defendants cannot use Rule 74.06(b)(4) to relitigate ordinary errors after default; they must establish lack of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction, or an actual due-process violation.
The court remanded for reentry of the default judgment that the circuit court had set aside.