Background
Gregory Ernst and Sandra Sheldon hired Tainter Landscape, LLC to perform landscaping improvements at their Warren County residential property. The parties later amended the agreement, increasing the project cost to about $141,000, and the homeowners paid Tainter $140,866 by May 2024.
The homeowners sued Tainter for elder abuse and breach of contract, alleging that Tainter did not timely complete the work and failed to properly renew an Innsbrook construction permit after it lapsed. Tainter was served but did not answer or attend the damages hearing. The circuit court entered a June 4, 2025 default judgment for $141,466 plus costs. Tainter later moved to set it aside, attaching an answer that generally denied the allegations and affidavits that merely verified the pleadings. The circuit court granted the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed. Rule 74.05(d) permits relief from a default judgment only upon a motion stating facts constituting a meritorious defense and showing good cause. A defaulting party must offer at least an arguable defense supported by facts and sworn evidence; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
Tainter’s motion and answer did not state any facts supporting a defense to the breach-of-contract claim on which the default judgment rested. Although its filings described the elder-abuse allegations as fraudulent and generally denied the petition, they offered no substantive account of the contract or any defense to the claimed failure to complete the landscaping work. The circuit court therefore abused its discretion in setting aside the judgment. The case was remanded with directions to reinstate the June 4, 2025 default judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to set aside a default judgment must state facts supporting a meritorious defense, not merely assert that one exists.
- General denials and affidavits that only verify pleadings do not establish a defense to a breach-of-contract claim.
- Because Tainter failed to satisfy Rule 74.05(d)’s meritorious-defense requirement, reinstatement of the $141,466 default judgment was required.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Missouri’s preference for resolving cases on the merits does not excuse a defaulting party from meeting Rule 74.05(d)’s pleading and evidentiary requirements. A party seeking to reopen a default must tie specific, sworn facts to a defense that could affect the claim actually adjudicated.