Consumer Law: MMPA-Nunc Pro Tunc-Notice

Where a car buyer claimed that the seller violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by selling her a defective car without clear title, and the trial court first entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and then replaced it with a judgment in favor of the defendant, the judgment is vacated and remanded because the entry of the second judgment was not an order nunc pro tunc, so the court was required to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because the judgment was rendered in excess of the court’s authority, not its jurisdiction, the judgment was not void but voidable.

Vacated; remanded.

Fisher v. H&H Motor Group, LLC (MLW No. 73613/Case No. WD82030 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Gillis, J. (Melika T. Harris, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (Anthony L. Gosserand, Kansas City, Missouri, for respondent).