arguable theory defense in Missouri

1978And, “While defendant should not be required at [the motion] stage to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, he should be required to make some showing to the court of the existence of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Luce, supra, at 535 S.W.2d 504 [6—8].

1978And, “While defendant should not be required at [the motion] stage to present extensive evidence or a full-blown defense, he should be required to make some showing to the court of the existence of at least an arguable theory of defense.” Luce, supra, at 535 S.W.2d 504 [6—8].

2019“In order to show a meritorious defense, the party in default need not present extensive evidence.” Tinsley v. B&B Engines, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). “[T]he party need only make a showing of an arguable theory of defense.” Id.

2019“In order to show a meritorious defense, the party in default need not present extensive evidence.” Tinsley v. B&B Engines, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). “[T]he party need only make a showing of an arguable theory of defense.” Id.

2006“Although there is no universal standard which establishes the components of a meritorious defense, it has been interpreted to mean ‘any factor likely to materially affect the substantive result of the case.’ ” Tinsley v. B & B Engines, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Mo.App.2000) (quoting Yerkes v. Asberry, 938 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1997)).

2000Id.

2023See Magee v. Magee, 904 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (noting that “[m]ere assertions of conclusions and speculation do not constitute a meritorious defense,” and finding the defaulting party’s “conclusory denials fail[ed] to set forth even the minimum facts necessary to support a determination that [he] had an arguable theory of defense to the claims” raised by the non-defaulting party); see also In re Marriage of Millsap, 559 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo. App. 1977) (“A general denial is not tantamount to a plea setting forth a meritorious defense when determining whether an order or judgment en

1996“The defense does not have to be conclusively proven, but must simply show the existence of an arguable theory of defense.” Magee v. Magee, 904 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Mo.App.1995).

2023“It would be inconsistent with the distaste for default judgments to take an overly restrictive approach to the meaning of the word ‘defense.’” Myers v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996).

2007See id. at 839 .

2006In order to show a meritorious defense, the party in default need not present extensive evidence “ ‘to make some showing to the court of at least an arguable theory of defense.’ ” Snelling, 144 S.W.3d at 918 (quoting Newton v. *792 Manley, 824 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Mo.App.1992)).

2006Accordingly, Appellant argues that because in the first case Respondent could have brought its action for both the $6,000.00 in unpaid rent and the $36,000.00 remaining on the lease term, its affirmative defense of res judicata is “ ‘at least an arguable theory of defense.’ ” Snelling, 144 S.W.3d at 918 (quoting Newton, 824 S.W.2d at 525 ).

2024Id. at 791–92.

2022Co. v. Tri Lakes Interiors, Inc., 185 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). “[T]he party in default need not present extensive evidence to make some showing . . . of at least an arguable theory of defense” since “the concept of meritorious defense is not intended to impose a high hurdle, but is designed to allow the case to be decided on its merits where there are legitimate issues to be considered.” Heintz Elec.

2023As noted above, although the “party in default has the burden of proving it had a meritorious defense,” Bryant v. Wahl, 502 S.W.3d 9, 16 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), it “need not present a defense in detail”; it simply must “demonstrate at least an arguable theory that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 14 (quoting Bredeman v. Eno, 863 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)).

1997Id.

1996Clark v. Brown, 814 S.W.2d at 642 - *840 43; Moore v. Dahlberg, 810 S.W.2d at 732 .

1992Moore v. Dahlberg, 810 S.W.2d 730, 732 [2] (Mo.App.1991).

2023See Magee v. Magee, 904 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (noting that “[m]ere assertions of conclusions and speculation do not constitute a meritorious defense,” and finding the defaulting party’s “conclusory denials fail[ed] to set forth even the minimum facts necessary to support a determination that [he] had an arguable theory of defense to the claims” raised by the non-defaulting party); see also In re Marriage of Millsap, 559 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo. App. 1977) (“A general denial is not tantamount to a plea setting forth a meritorious defense when determining whether an order or judgment en

2023As noted above, although the “party in default has the burden of proving it had a meritorious defense,” Bryant v. Wahl, 502 S.W.3d 9, 16 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), it “need not present a defense in detail”; it simply must “demonstrate at least an arguable theory that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 14 (quoting Bredeman v. Eno, 863 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)).

2023As noted above, although the “party in default has the burden of proving it had a meritorious defense,” Bryant v. Wahl, 502 S.W.3d 9, 16 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016), it “need not present a defense in detail”; it simply must “demonstrate at least an arguable theory that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 14 (quoting Bredeman v. Eno, 863 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)).

2023While a frivolous legal argument may not raise an arguable theory of defense, see Beren Corp. v. Spader, 255 N.W.2d 247, 253 (Neb. 1977), the issue of whether the County can claw back the amount of a tax refund is not clearly frivolous.

2007Ben F. Blanton Const., Inc. v. Castle Hill Holdings XI, L.L.C, 109 S.W.3d 693, 694 (Mo.App.

1997See Id.