Appeals court tosses judgment against law firm’s former clients

The Court of Appeals Eastern District on July 20 granted an unusual victory to a trio of pro se litigants who had faced a nearly $12,000 default judgment secured against them by their former law firm. 

In 2019, siblings Jeanette, David and Gerald Puetz had hired the firm now known as Zick, Voss, Politte, Richardson & Brinker to represent them in partitioning some property and determining an heirship. Their attorney, Sean Brinker, later withdrew from the case. In his brief, he cited “conflicting directives and goals” among the siblings that caused a conflict of interest in his representation.

In 2020, the Zick Voss firm sued the Puetzes in the associate division of the Franklin County Circuit Court, alleging they had failed to pay the legal bills they’d incurred. The summons with which they were served told them they needed to appear in court on July 6, 2020, at 9 a.m. 

A few weeks before that date, however, the firm filed a motion for a default judgment, alleging that the Puetzes had failed to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of receiving the summons. Judge David L. Hoven granted the motion, entering a judgment for the $10,019.47 in allegedly outstanding bills, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, service fees and court costs. 

As a result, when the Puetzes showed up for court on the appointed day, they learned they owed a judgment that totaled $11,657.63. Because they no longer had an active case on the docket, they were denied entry to the courthouse due to the COVID-19 restrictions then in place. 

After the judge denied their pro se motion to set aside the default judgment, the Puetzes, still unrepresented, filed an appeal with the Eastern District. As Judge James M. Dowd wrote in the opinion, they raised “a slew of points on appeal” in their brief. Brinker, who argued the appellate case, wrote that “the briefing deficiencies are so severe and pervasive that Respondent cannot reasonably determine Appellants’ claim of error, identify the specific ruling being challenged, or decipher Appellants’ argument.”

Nonetheless, one argument carried the day: that the Puetzes had done exactly what the court’s summons told them to do.

“If one were to read it again and again it must become clear and convincing to all fact finders that thirty days to answer is not on this summons,” they wrote in their brief.

The Eastern District agreed, holding that the Puetzes had not blown the 30-day deadline to file their response because no such deadline applied in their case.

The Rules of Civil Procedure, which apply to most civil actions, require a defendant to file an answer within 30 days after service of the summons and petition. But, Dowd wrote, associate-level cases are governed by chapter 517 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, which lays out a different procedure. Responses aren’t due until the date on the summons, and if no response is filed then the allegations are assumed to be denied. 

“Therefore, the Puetzes’ obligation pursuant to the summons was to appear in court on July 6 at 9 a.m.,” Dowd wrote. “They were not, and could not be, in default before that date.” The entry of the default judgment, he added, was “beyond the court’s authority and manifestly erroneous.” Judges Angela T. Quigless and Kurt S. Odenwald concurred.

Brinker declined to comment on the ruling. 

Reached by phone, the Puetzes were elated that the court had sided with them at this stage of what Jeanette Puetz called a “convoluted carousel of chaos.”

David Puetz said they researched their brief together during visits to the library that were limited to a half-hour at a time during the pandemic. He said they hope to secure an attorney, as the removal of the default judgment just puts them back to square one in their ongoing dispute with their former law firm. 

“That was just a battle victory, not winning the war,” he said.

The case is Zick, Voss, Politte & Richardson v. Puetz, ED109152.