Background
Laurie P. Staus sued Federal Protection, Inc. for personal injuries allegedly caused by the company’s negligence. Federal Protection was served with the summons and petition on March 7, 2024, but did not answer. The Pettis County Circuit Court entered a $5.25 million default judgment against it on May 15, 2024.
After judgment, Staus obtained leave to amend the return of service to clarify that the person who accepted service was the person in charge of Federal Protection’s business office. Federal Protection moved on May 30, 2025—more than one year after the default judgment—to set it aside under Missouri Rules 74.05(d) and 74.06(b).
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion. The one-year period to seek relief from the default judgment began when the judgment was entered on May 15, 2024, not when the return of service was later amended. The amendment merely corrected the documentation of service; it did not alter the undisputed fact that Federal Protection had been properly served.
The court also rejected Federal Protection’s due-process and equitable-tolling arguments. Proper service gave the company notice of the lawsuit, and its failure to appear meant it was charged with notice of subsequent proceedings, including the judgment. The company did not show diligent pursuit of its rights or extraordinary circumstances justifying tolling.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 74.05(d) motion to set aside a default judgment must be filed within one year of entry of that judgment.
- An amended return of service relates back to the original return when it corrects the record of proper service already made.
- A properly served defendant that fails to respond is charged with notice of later proceedings and ordinarily cannot rely on lack of notice of the default judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict deadline for seeking relief from a Missouri default judgment. A later correction to the return of service does not restart that deadline where service itself was valid.
It also reinforces that forwarding a lawsuit to an insurer does not establish diligence for equitable-tolling purposes when the defendant then takes no action to protect its interests.