Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
It seems that one or both parties perjures his or herself in nearly every divorce case.
In one recent one out of Clinton County, those lies came back to haunt the wife in that case. She testified at trial that her husband had certain valuable items of construction equipment and vehicles. After the trial, and the denial of coverage on the homeowners insurance policy, the husband dug until he found his property hidden across the street from where his former wife lived with her new husband, who happened to also own a similar construction business.
After more deception and trial of the ex-wife for contempt, the Clinton County Circuit Court judge jailed her until she pays $90,000 or returns the property items. The Judge declared her perjury, lies, and intentional deception to be the most serious he had seen.
So good to see this lady jailed instead of slapped on the wrist.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Recently, a Missouri jury found a lawyer guilty of criminal contempt of court, for which he was sentenced to 120 days in jail. The lawyer then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Missouri Supreme Court. That court ultimately agreed with the attorney and discharged him from his imprisonment.
That case styled “In re: Carl Smith v. Sheriff Raymond Pace and the Honorable Gary Witt, case SC90425, was decided in opinion issued May 11, 2010.
After reviewing the ancient and confusing history of criminal contempt charges in the State of Missouri, and relevant United States Supreme Court cases, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the jury instructions failed to include necessary fundamental findings as to whether attorney Smith intentionally or recklessly made false statements in a petition filed in a case against the attorney’s client before a Judge Carter.
In criminal contempt trial of attorney Smith before Platte County’s Judge Gary Witt, said to be the first criminal contempt jury trial on record in the State of Missouri, Judge Carter testified but no evidence was presented and no finding made by the jury as whether the strong words by attorney Smith were false or made with reckless disregard for whether the statements were true or false. As the Missouri Supreme Court holds that such a finding is a essential element of criminal contempt, the Supreme Court found in favor of attorney Smith and discharged him from his imprisonment in the Ozark County jail of respondent Sheriff Raymond Pace.
(Respondent Gary Witt conducted the trial in which the jury found attorney Smith guilty based upon the faulty jury instructions submitted by the prosecuting attorney.)
Aside from listing the necessary elements of a criminal contempt case, this opinion by the Missouri Supreme Court’s opinion in this case is important because it emphasizes that in order to constitute criminal contempt the lawyer’s indirect words or actions (i.e., words or acts that take place outside the presence of the judge/court criticized) must have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the judicial proceeding at stake. In attorney Smith’s case, the Supreme Court found that the strong words criticizing Judge Craig Carter of Douglas County, Missouri, did NOT interfere with or pose an IMMINENT threat of interfering with the administration of justice. In fact, the State stipulated at the criminal contempt trial of attorney Smith before Judge Witt that the strong words did not interfere with or cause Judge Carter to act any differently that he otherwise would have.
What remains to be seen is whether this victory in the end will enhance attorney Smith’s stature in the eyes of the public, or make any difference at all. Surely, it may not endear him to judges before whom he practices.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Was driving down a back road and saw this sign on a pole along the ditch–
This property protected by Biting Dogs and Automatic Shotguns.
The “property” looks to be a declining large older home on acreage with a non-gated driveway.
If the sign is real and not just a bluff, then it asks for trouble, particularly if a person pulled up the driveway to ask directions or for some other legitimate reason. Such an uninvited person–i.e., a trespasser–who is no threat to the property or anyone who lives on the property should not risk attack by dog or gun. The property owner who actually protects his property in this way should beware of being sued by an unsuspecting harmless trespasser in many situations.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Get a lawyer early on if you are buying land at a Missouri Tax Sale. The buyer in Drake Development & Construction, LLC v. Jacob Holdings, Inc. (a March 12, 2010, decision of the Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals) failed to do so and paid the price so to speak.
Missouri statute 140.405 requires the buyer at the tax sale to give notice to the owner at the time of the tax sale of that owner’s right to redeem (buy back) the property. That law spells out what notice must be given, and basically calls for notice by certified mail to each such owner at least 90 days prior to the date when the buyer at the tax sale is authorized to acquire the deed from the county which sold the land for unpaid back taxes. Apparently the buyer was unaware of Missouri cases which require that this notice must inform persons of the deadline by which they must act to redeem. Since the buyer failed to include the deadline date to redeem in the notice letter to owners at the time of tax sale, the buyer lost all interest in the property. In other words, the buyer at the tax sale lost the land it purchased because the buyer left the deadline date out of its notice of right to redeem. The tough thing about this situation is that section 140.405 does not come out and specifically state that the deadline date has to be in the notice. A little better law making may have prevented the whole problem for the buyer.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
A Missouri homeowner home at night with his wife, points a gun through the door glass at the perceived intruder’s head, who then sped away while chased by a few warning shots by the homeowner. No criminal charges were reportedly filed against the homeowner.
Is it legal or criminal to shoot a person trying to break into your home? How do we know the person is not injured, afoot after a car problem or wreck, or involved in some emergency situation? What if the intruder is breaking in to use a phone to save a life or call 911 for an ambulance? May we shoot because we think we are in danger? How sure do we have to be first? Each case turns on its own facts which is tough because the homeowner rarely has to time to call a lawyer or get a court decision to be sure before using force in defense.
Missouri law treats defense of property differently from defense of public or person. Deadly force may be legally used in self defense of one’s person or the public under certain circumstances. But, Missouri law does not excuse the use of deadly force to defend one’s property. So, we face prosecution for serious crimes if we use deadly force to protect mere property. Only reasonable physical force is permitted to protect property from theft, damage or tampering. See Missouri Statutes Chapter 563 for detail–particularly 563.026 and 563.041 regarding deadly versus physical force.
Remember too that even if criminal charges are not filed against you, the person injured or killed by your deadly or physical force (self defense of person or property) may sue for major money damages in a civil (not criminal) court case. In other words, you may not go to jail, but you may be broke financially.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
The Missouri Supreme Court case of Roman v. King, 289 Mo 641, 654, 233 S.W. 161, 165 (1921), is old but good law in favor of tenants who slip and fall on common sidewalks/grounds due to landlord’s failure to remove snow and ice, make repairs, etc. When the landlord fails to timely remove accumulated ice on a common sidewalk that makes the only way to the apartment/office dangerous (just one example), what is the tenant to do? Find another place to stay? Or, try to walk on the ice?
The Missouri Supreme Court recognized the tenant’s dilemma and found that the tenant who fell on dangerous access route to her apartment was NOT at fault in continuing to use that only access to her apartment. The Roman case is one to turn to when the landlord or its insurer try to blame the tenant for falling on ice left overly long on the only common sidewalk to the tenant’s apartment or other rented space.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Pesonal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Per recent news, Chase bank apparently told homeowner to stop payments and then foreclosed on the home. Chase and other banks may be so large that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Be careful, get everything in writing, and keep all in your files.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
A frequent question on family law in Missouri is will the Court order a shared custody plan where the parents alternate weeks with the children of the marriage/paternity relationship.
Speaking mainly as to experience with the Clay County Circuit Court setting in Liberty, Missouri–which other Missouri courts may or may not mirror on this issue–my take is that the court is likely to order such shared custody ONLY IF both parents agree that it is in the best interests of the children. Of course, if a child is in school, then both parents are going to need to be close enough to the school to get the child to school without a long drive.
If the court sees problems with shared custody for the child, it may decide not to order shared custody even if both parents think it is the best way to go. (Sometimes a parent may agree to shared custody for the wrong reasons, i.e., to reduce child support, to win on some other issue, lacked the money to resist the other parent, etc.)
What if the parents do NOT agree that shared custody is best for the children? Then my experience is there is a slim to none chance that the court will order shared custody for the children. An explanation is that the court prefers a primary residential home base for the children, especially where the parents are not in agreement on working a shared custody plan.
Kurt H. King
Law Office of Kurt H. King
816.781.6000
20 E. Franklin
Liberty, Clay County, Missouri 64068
http://www.kurthking.com
Bankruptcy, Child Custody and Support, Divorce and Modification, Family Law
Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
The Law Office of Kurt H King 