menu MENU

Archive for November, 2013

If You Are Thinking of Buying a Business, Beware

November 27th, 2013

for sale

If you are thinking of buying an existing business, you better be aware of the doctrine of corporate successor liability.  This scary sounding doctrine essentially states that a new owner of a business can be held liable and responsible for the bills, expenses, and liabilities of the old owner if:

1. the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the debts and liabilities

2. the transaction amounts to a merger or consolidation

3. when the purchaser is merely a continuation of the seller, or

4. when the transaction is entered into fraudulently to escape liability for the debts and other liabilities

To read more about the doctrine of corporate successor liability, check out:  Forrest Edwards d/b/a Strike Team Media, Appellant, vs. Black Twig Marketing and Communications LLC d/b/a Black Twig Communications, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED99581

Visit our website at

Paying Your Spouse’s Medical Bills

November 22nd, 2013

medical bill 2

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District has ruled that in order for a spouse to be responsible for the bills of the other spouse, the company or person seeking to recover the money or damages must show that the bill was necessary.

Often times hospitals will attempt to collect one spouse’s medical bills from the other spouse.  In order to do so, the hospital must prove all of the elements of the doctrine of necessaries.  The doctrine of necessaries states that a spouse is liable for the other spouse’s necessary expenses, but not for the expenses or bills that were not shown to be necessary or that were not necessary.

To read the case in its entirety, check out:
Saint Francis Medical Center, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. Britney Watkins, f/k/a Britney Carner, and Tyler Watkins, Defendant-Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD32313

Visit our website at

Thirty Days for Child Abuse

November 21st, 2013


Missouri requires the Children’s Division to complete an investigation of child abuse within thirty days of the abuse being reported except for good cause. In addition, the Children’s Division must notify the defendant within ninety days. For more details, see this case.

In Re The Matter of Taryn Williams vs. State of Missouri, Department of Social Services
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, WD-75693

Visit our website at

Two birds with one stone, or two cops with one bullet?

November 20th, 2013


Mr. Reed repeatedly pulled the trigger of his firearm while trying to point it at two police officers who were after him. Even though only one bullet was fired, Mr. Reed received two convictions for assault on a police officer.
Read all the details in this case.
State of Missouri vs. Jerod Mathew Reed
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District- WD75314

Visit our website at

You’re not a part of my family… Are you stalking me?

November 19th, 2013


Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District has held that orders of protection will only be granted against people outside of your family or household for stalking. In one case, an order of protection was granted when the victim was followed and threatened without a legitimate purpose. If you want an order of protection, and need help, give our office a call and check out this case:

Mark A. Patterson, Petitioner/Respondent, vs. Ronnie Pilot, Respondent/Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District- SD32266

Visit our website at

Going through a divorce?

November 18th, 2013

divorce 3

The Missouri Court of Appeals requires that all property be designated as marital or separate. In addition, Missouri requires that the property be divided fairly and equitably. Make sure your divorce attorney gets this done.

If your attorney has questions, tell them to check out this case:
Margaret A. Pollard vs. D.L. Pollard
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District- WD75647

Visit our website at

Have you been a Victim of Fraud?

November 15th, 2013


The Missouri Courts have stated that in order to prove fraud, you must show the following elements: representation of fact, objective materiality, ignorance of falsity, right to rely when “a distinct and specific representation is made to be acted upon for the purpose of inducing action and which has induced action”, and proximately caused injury when plaintiff did not receive interest promised.

In order to see these elements in action, check out this case:
Maria Stander vs. Linda Szabados
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District- WD75697

Visit our website at

Court Says Mental Handicap is No Excuse

November 14th, 2013


The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has ruled that mental retardation is no exception for filing documents late. The lesson to be learned here is: court rules can be tough.. hire a lawyer.

Still curious? Check out this case:
Jason Henrickson, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District- ED98473

Visit our website at

Saint Louis Red Light Camera Tickets

November 13th, 2013

red light 3

The Missouri Court of Appeals has recently struck down an ordinance in Saint Louis allowing drivers to be given tickets using a red light camera. The Court stated that the city must give notice of the charge and of the driver’s rights in order to be adequate. Drivers who receive the ticket from a red light camera must be given the ability to challenge their violation through legal proceedings and cannot be forced into paying the fine without due process.

For more information, check out this case:
Alexa Smith, Faith Morgan, and David Boyd, Respondent/Cross-Appellants, vs. City of St. Louis, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District- ED98263

Visit our website at

You’re Fired For Forging that Doctor’s Note… Or Are You?

November 12th, 2013


A Missouri Court of Appeals has recently said that willfully falsifying documents with intent to deceive an employer can constitute misconduct. However, whether that misconduct qualifies for termination is another issue. The Missouri Court stated that if the forgery is not regarding an important issue, then the misconduct is not enough to get fired for. In this case, an employee should not have been fired when he forged a doctor’s note to operate heavy machinery.

For more information, check out this case:
Cheikh Seck vs. Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District- WD75148

Visit our website at