Provides a breakdown of Rule 74.09 with respect to the revival of a judgment, noting that a motion by a judgment creditor to revive a judgment must be granted if the debtor fails to show cause why the judgment should not be revived.  Also considers Rule 74.06(b)'s allowance of relief from judgments for all parties on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Relative sophistication of the parties not found to create an exception to Rule 74.06(b). 

Court Summary:

Chris Koster ("the Attorney General") appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the dismissal of his action to revive a judgment. The Attorney Generally argues the trial court: (1) erred in denying the Attorney General’s motion to revive the judgment and in dismissing the action; and (2) abused its discretion in denying the Attorney General’s motion to set aside the dismissal.

REVERSED.

Division Three holds:

The trial court erred in denying the Attorney General’s motion to revive the judgment, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Attorney General’s motion to set aside the dismissal of the Attorney General’s action to revive the judgment.

10/21/2014

Download Dummett v. Koster