verification requirement in Missouri

2023"As a general rule the verification requirement is not so strict as to make an unverified petition 'unsalvageable.'" Id. (quoting Drury Displays, 760 S.W.2d at 114 ).

2023"As a general rule the verification requirement is not so strict as to make an unverified petition 'unsalvageable.'" Id. (quoting Drury Displays, 760 S.W.2d at 114 ).

2023Co. v. Jones, 798 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Mo. banc 1990) (citing Drury Displays v. Bd. of Adjustment, 760 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Mo. banc 1988)).

2023Co., 798 S.W.2d at 721 .

1990Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990) (holding that for purposes of Rule 29.15 the verification requirement “is an essential element of the postconviction motion”).

1990Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990) (holding that for purposes of Rule 29.15 the verification requirement "is an essential element of the postconviction motion").

1990To say the verification requirement of Rule 27.26(c) is jurisdictional, as did the Eastern District Court of Appeals in Mills v. State, 769 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Mo. App.1989), is not entirely accurate and does not resolve the question.

1990Though defendant’s counsel attached a certificate stating that the motion was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and he knew of no additional grounds or allegations that could be raised in behalf of defendant, the verification requirement of Rule 29.15(f) has been held to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, Mills v. State, 769 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Mo.App.1989), and this Court’s review is limited to grounds raised in the original motion, Sloan v. State, 779 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Mo. banc 1989), none of which have been presented on appeal. 2 *402 IV.

2009White, 873 S.W.2d at 594 .

2005The Supreme Court, however, eliminated the verification requirement in State v. White, 873 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Mo. banc 1994). 2 .

1993Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1991) posed as the question for decision: ■ “Whether the motion court had jurisdiction over Wilson’s post-conviction proceedings when a timely filed, properly verified, amended motion was filed subsequent to the filing of an unverified pro se motion.” The court answered: Because the sole deficiency in the pro se motion, the absence of verification, was remedied by a timely filed, verified, amended motion that presented the claims litigated in this proceeding, the purpose of the verification requirement was satisfied in this case.

1991The Wilson court held, “Because the sole deficiency in the pro se motion, the absence of verification, was remedied by a timely filed, verified, amended motion that presented the claims litigated in this proceeding, the purpose of the verification requirement was satisfied in this case.” Wilson , at 834.

1991Second, the purpose of the verification requirement is said to be “to discourage frivolous and unfounded allegations which must be addressed by trial courts already over burdened with a proliferation of post-conviction remedy motions.” Malone, 798 S.W.2d at 151 , quoting from West v. State, 787 S.W.2d 856 , 857 (Mo.App.1990).

1990West v. State, 787 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. App.1990).

1991Second, the purpose of the verification requirement is said to be “to discourage frivolous and unfounded allegations which must be addressed by trial courts already over burdened with a proliferation of post-conviction remedy motions.” Malone, 798 S.W.2d at 151 , quoting from West v. State, 787 S.W.2d 856 , 857 (Mo.App.1990).

1991State v. Vinson, 800 S.W.2d 444, 446-448 (Mo. banc 1990); Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149, 150-151 (Mo. banc 1990) (citing Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990)).

2024Plainly, Foster – and the Court in this present case – agree with the conclusion in Moore v. Morehead, 666 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Mo. App. 1984), stating: “To the extent that the statutes governing election contests are silent as to the procedural rules to apply in the conduct of such contests, the relevant procedural statutes and rules that apply in all civil actions also apply in governing procedure in election contests.” 17 The verification requirement is not so strict as to make the initial, unverified petition unsalvageable, and the verification relates back to the filing of the original petiti

2021But assuming it 5 All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2020). 5 was, the lack of verification does not render the judgment erroneous because “[t]he absence of verification is effectively cured by the judgment following the hearing.” In re Estate of Basler v. Delassus, 690 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Mo. banc 1985) (evaluating a claim of error under the probate code based upon the lack of verification).

2009See Buchli, 152 S.W.3d at 305 ; State v. Wegrzyn, 751 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1988) (deputy sheriffs notarized application for warrant was *366 based on document signed by police officer that was not dated, not verified by oath, and not properly notarized; court held that the combination of documents was sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement); State v. Gannaway, 786 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.App.1990) (no signature, but evidence of intent to make affidavit was sufficient); State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 284-288 (Iowa 1998) (reason to believe signer under oath at the time he signed his name

2009See Buchli, 152 S.W.3d at 305 ; State v. Wegrzyn, 751 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1988) (deputy sheriffs notarized application for warrant was *366 based on document signed by police officer that was not dated, not verified by oath, and not properly notarized; court held that the combination of documents was sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement); State v. Gannaway, 786 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.App.1990) (no signature, but evidence of intent to make affidavit was sufficient); State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 284-288 (Iowa 1998) (reason to believe signer under oath at the time he signed his name

2009See Buchli, 152 S.W.3d at 305 ; State v. Wegrzyn, 751 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1988) (deputy sheriffs notarized application for warrant was *366 based on document signed by police officer that was not dated, not verified by oath, and not properly notarized; court held that the combination of documents was sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement); State v. Gannaway, 786 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.App.1990) (no signature, but evidence of intent to make affidavit was sufficient); State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 284-288 (Iowa 1998) (reason to believe signer under oath at the time he signed his name

2009See Buchli, 152 S.W.3d at 305 ; State v. Wegrzyn, 751 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1988) (deputy sheriffs notarized application for warrant was *366 based on document signed by police officer that was not dated, not verified by oath, and not properly notarized; court held that the combination of documents was sufficient to satisfy the verification requirement); State v. Gannaway, 786 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo.App.1990) (no signature, but evidence of intent to make affidavit was sufficient); State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 284-288 (Iowa 1998) (reason to believe signer under oath at the time he signed his name

1994This is in part because “[a]n amended motion differs significantly from the original motion.” Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993).

1991State v. Vinson, 800 S.W.2d 444, 446-448 (Mo. banc 1990); Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149, 150-151 (Mo. banc 1990) (citing Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990)).

1990State v. Rector, 547 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App.1977); Riley v. State, 588 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo.App.1979).

1990State v. Rector, 547 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App. 1977); Riley v. State, 588 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo.App.1979).

1990State v. Rector, 547 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App.1977); Riley v. State, 588 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo.App.1979).

1990State v. Rector, 547 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App. 1977); Riley v. State, 588 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo.App.1979).

1990Though defendant’s counsel attached a certificate stating that the motion was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and he knew of no additional grounds or allegations that could be raised in behalf of defendant, the verification requirement of Rule 29.15(f) has been held to be a jurisdictional prerequisite, Mills v. State, 769 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Mo.App.1989), and this Court’s review is limited to grounds raised in the original motion, Sloan v. State, 779 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Mo. banc 1989), none of which have been presented on appeal. 2 *402 IV.

1988The purpose of the thirty-day requirement is to give the board of adjustment timely notice of the litigation, and “a party who is notified of litigation concerning a given transaction or occurrence has been given all the notice the statutes of limitation are intended to afford.” Koerper & Co., Inc. v. Unitel International, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Mo. banc 1987).