Background
Paul and Lorna Kay Holmes are unit owners in the Greens of Broadmoor condominium community in St. Louis County, Missouri, having purchased their unit in 2020. In 2023, they filed suit against the Greens of Broadmoor Condominium Association and three individual board members, arguing that the Association had no authority to govern, was not permitted to incorporate, and had no power to record a 2019 Restatement of Declaration of Condominium. The Association moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.
The circuit court dismissed the First Amended Petition with prejudice on May 22, 2024, and awarded the Association $5,074 in attorneys’ fees. The Holmeses appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that their brief preserved nothing for review. Holmes v. Greens of Broadmoor, 711 S.W.3d 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025). After the appellate mandate issued, the Holmeses filed a motion in the circuit court on June 11, 2025—more than one year after the original judgment—seeking to set it aside under § 511.250 and Rule 74.06, asserting various procedural irregularities and a due process violation arising from the circuit court’s failure to conduct a recorded evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss.
The circuit court denied the motion to set aside on July 10, 2025, concluding it was time-barred because it was filed more than one year after entry of the original judgment, as required by Rule 74.06(c). The Holmeses appealed that denial, and the Association cross-moved for attorneys’ fees under Rule 84.19 on grounds that the appeal was frivolous.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial on all five points raised by the Holmeses. On Points One through Four—the claimed “irregularities” in the judgment—the court held that Rule 74.06(c)’s one-year deadline governs and supersedes the three-year period provided by § 511.250, because Missouri Supreme Court rules override inconsistent statutes under Rule 41.02 and Article V, § 5 of the Missouri Constitution. Because the motion was filed on June 11, 2025, more than one year after the May 22, 2024 judgment, those claims were time-barred. The court also clarified that alleged misapplications of law do not constitute “irregularities” under Rule 74.06(b)(3), and that Rule 74.06(b) cannot serve as a vehicle to collaterally attack a judgment that was already affirmed on direct appeal.
On Point Five—the void-judgment/due process claim—the court reviewed the question de novo and rejected it. The Holmeses had notice of the motion to dismiss, filed written opposition, appeared through counsel at the April 29, 2024 hearing, and had notice of and an opportunity to respond to the attorneys’ fees request before judgment was entered. The court found that they had simply failed to request a recorded or evidentiary hearing, and their failure to do so did not deprive them of due process. Because the judgment was not void, there was no basis to set it aside regardless of when the motion was filed.
The court denied the Association’s Rule 84.19 motion for appellate attorneys’ fees, finding the appeal was not so devoid of merit as to be frivolous, and noting that such sanctions are a drastic remedy to be applied with great caution.
Key Takeaways
- Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.06(c) supersedes § 511.250: a motion to set aside a judgment for “irregularity” must be filed within one year of judgment, not three years.
- Alleged misapplications of law are not “irregularities” under Rule 74.06(b)(3) and cannot be raised through a motion to set aside—they must be raised on direct appeal.
- A judgment is void for due process purposes only when a party lacked notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; a party who appeared through counsel, filed written opposition, and argued at the hearing cannot claim a due process defect merely because the hearing was not recorded or evidentiary.
- Rule 84.19 frivolous-appeal sanctions remain a drastic remedy; unpersuasive arguments alone do not justify an award of appellate attorneys’ fees.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the interplay between Missouri’s statutory and rule-based mechanisms for setting aside judgments, firmly establishing that the one-year deadline in Rule 74.06(c) controls over the three-year period in § 511.250. Practitioners who miss a direct appeal and consider a post-mandate motion to set aside should treat the one-year clock as absolute for irregularity claims.
The ruling also reinforces the narrow scope of the “void judgment” doctrine in Missouri. Litigants who participated in proceedings—received notice, filed briefs, and appeared at hearings—will face a high bar in claiming a due process-based voidness, particularly where they did not themselves request the additional procedural protections (such as a recorded hearing) that they later assert were required.