ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District reversed a lower court's order and judgment, ruling that the lower court erred when it granted dismissal.
"Given the inconclusive record before us, we cannot proceed in our review because we are unable to determine the operative pleading upon which the circuit court entered its order and judgment dismissing Rice’s lawsuit," Presiding Judge Kurt S. Odenwald wrote in the decision. "The circuit court erred if it premised its order and judgment upon the abandoned Initial Petition...Because Respondents never moved to dismiss the Amended Petition, the circuit court likewise erred if it granted dismissal of the Amended Petition on grounds alleged only in the Motion to Dismiss the Initial Petition...We therefore are compelled to remand this caused to the circuit court for further proceedings in which the Amended Petition is deemed the operative petition in this action."
Rice appealed the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice of his action against Midland States Bank and Midland States Bancorp Inc. raising five main points of contention, according to the July 16 order in Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District.
Odenwald notes that the central issue is whether the circuit court's dismissal was based on Rice's initial petition or his subsequently filed amended petition.
Rice, representing himself, initially filed a petition after an alleged check-washing incident involving DF Ingredients Inc. He sought relief from the respondents both personally and on behalf of DF Ingredients.
The respondents responded with a motion to dismiss the initial petition, arguing that Rice lacked standing or failed to state a claim.
Before the court ruled on this motion, Rice filed a motion seeking to amend his petition, along with the proposed first restated verified petition.
The respondents opposed this motion, arguing that the amendment would not address the deficiencies in the original petition. However, they did not file a motion to dismiss the amended petition.
Despite this, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Rice appealed, but the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of a final, appealable judgment. Following a re-designation of the dismissal as final, Rice filed a new appeal.
The review standard for dismissal is de novo, focusing on whether the petition states a claim for relief.
If the circuit court’s reasons for dismissal are unclear, the appellate court may affirm based on any grounds raised in the dismissal motion. However, in this case, the confusion revolves around whether the dismissal was applied to the Initial or the amended petition.
Rice argued that the court's dismissal should have been based on the amended petition, as the initial petition was abandoned upon the filing of the amended petition according to Rule 55.33(a).
The respondents, however, assert that the dismissal was based on the initial petition because the court had not granted leave to file the amended petition.
They argued that Rice’s appeal should be dismissed because the initial petition was not included in the appellate record. Nevertheless, Rule 55.33(a) renders the initial petition abandoned upon the filing of the amended petition, meaning it should not have been considered for dismissal.
The appellate court concluded that the circuit court may have erred in dismissing an abandoned petition or in dismissing the amended petition without a corresponding motion.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings with the amended petition as the operative document.
Rice represented himself. The Midland defendants were represented by Vincent D. Reese and Rebecca L. James.
Attorneys declined to comment further on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED112264