against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge in Missouri

2025“To prevail on an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, a litigant must show that the trial court could not have reasonably found, from the trial record, the presence of a fact necessary to uphold the judgment.” McKinney v. Smith, 520 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (citing Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206 ).

2025“The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard serves only as a check on a circuit court’s potential abuse of power in weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.” Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206 . 11 The trial court is entitled to believe “all, part, or none of the evidence, and we must defer to its factual findings . . . [.]” Hurricane Deck Holding Co. v. Spanburg Invs., LLC, 548 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018).

2025While an against-the- weight-of-the-evidence challenge allows for discussion of facts in the record not supporting the trial court’s judgment, step 3 requires that “all conflicts in testimony” be resolved “in accordance with the trial court’s credibility determinations[.]” Houston, 317 S.W.3d at 187 .

2025See id. at 187-88 (holding that defendant’s failure to identify the evidence in the record favorable to the judgment “doom[ed] their ability to satisfy the last step” of the against-the-weight-of-the- evidence challenge).

2025Holm v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 514 S.W.3d 590, 596 (Mo. banc 2017).

2021"An against-the-weight-of- the-evidence challenge presupposes the existence of substantial evidence to support the outcome--that is, the argument presumes there was some evidence with 'probative force on each fact necessary to sustain' it." Meseberg, 580 S.W.3d at 65 (quoting Holm v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 590, 596 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2024In determining whether the judgment is supported by substantial competent evidence, “we view the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregard all evidence and inferences contrary to the judgment, and defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations.” Estate of Briggs, 449 S.W.3d 421, 425 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014).

2020In determining whether the judgment is supported by substantial competent evidence, “we view the evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, disregard all evidence and inferences contrary to the judgment, and defer to the trial court's credibility determinations.” Estate of Briggs, 449 S.W.3d 421, 425 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014).

2022An against-the-weight-of-the-evidence claim “presupposes there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and our Court will reverse the judgment under this 17 standard of review only in rare cases when we have a firm belief the trial court’s decision is wrong.” S.M.S., 588 S.W.3d at 485 (citing Day, 528 S.W.3d at 411-12 ). “[W]e defer to the trial court’s findings of fact when the factual issues are contested and when the facts as found by the trial court depend on credibility determinations.” Id. (quoting Day, 528 S.W.3d at 412 ).

2022An against-the-weight-of-the-evidence claim “presupposes there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and our Court will reverse the judgment under this 17 standard of review only in rare cases when we have a firm belief the trial court’s decision is wrong.” S.M.S., 588 S.W.3d at 485 (citing Day, 528 S.W.3d at 411-12 ). “[W]e defer to the trial court’s findings of fact when the factual issues are contested and when the facts as found by the trial court depend on credibility determinations.” Id. (quoting Day, 528 S.W.3d at 412 ).

2025“To prevail on an against-the-weight-of-the- evidence challenge, a litigant must show that the trial court could not have reasonably found, from the trial record, the presence of a fact necessary to uphold the judgment.” Hurricane Deck Holding Company v. Spanburg Investments, LLC, 548 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018).

2025“The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard serves only as a check on a circuit court’s potential abuse of power in weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.” Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206 . 11 The trial court is entitled to believe “all, part, or none of the evidence, and we must defer to its factual findings . . . [.]” Hurricane Deck Holding Co. v. Spanburg Invs., LLC, 548 S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018).

2025See Hopkins, 449 S.W.3d at 802 (quoting Sauvain, 437 S.W.3d at 304 ); see also Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

2023Sporleder v. Sporleder, 655 S.W.3d 1 , 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Hopkins v. Hopkins, 449 S.W.3d 793, 802 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014)).

2023“The evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the [circuit] court’s judgment, and all contrary 4 evidence and inferences must be disregarded.” Id. (quoting Wildflower Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Rinderknecht, 25 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)).

2013Id,. “[Consideration of probative value necessarily involves some consideration of evidence contrary to the judgment, [but] we nevertheless ‘defer to the trial court as the finder of fact in our determination as to whether ... that judgment is against the weight of the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Wildflower Cmty. Ass’n v. Rinderknecht, 25 S.W.3d 530, 536 (Mo.App.W.D.2000)) (internal quotation omitted).

2021See JAS Apartments, Inc., 354 S.W.3d at 182 .

2018See JAS Apartments, Inc. , 354 S.W.3d at 182 .

2023“A court will set aside a judgment as ‘against the weight of the evidence’ only when it has a ‘firm belief that the judgment is wrong.’” Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (quoting Gifford v. Geosling, 951 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)). [A]n against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires completion of four sequential steps: (1) identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment; (2) identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition; 17 (3) identify the evi

2014Id.

2025“The against-the- weight-of-the-evidence standard serves only as a check on a circuit court’s potential abuse of 6 power in weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.” S.S.S., 529 S.W.3d at 816 (quoting Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206 ).

2024S.S.S., 529 S.W.3d at 815-16 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2025“To prevail on an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, a litigant must show that the trial court could not have reasonably found, from the trial record, the presence of a fact necessary to uphold the judgment.” McKinney v. Smith, 520 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (citing Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 206 ).

2023We must defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations, whether explicit or implicit[.] Tribus, 589 S.W.3d at 692. “‘The against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard serves only as a check on a circuit court’s potential abuse of power in weighing the evidence, and an appellate court will reverse only in rare cases, when it has a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong.’” McKinney v. Smith, 520 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017) (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 206 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2016Father relies primarily on In re Marriage of Johnson, 865 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Mo.App. 1993).

2016Father relies primarily on In re Marriage of Johnson, 865 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Mo.App. 1993).

2025See Hopkins, 449 S.W.3d at 802 (quoting Sauvain, 437 S.W.3d at 304 ); see also Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

2017An against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge “presupposes the threshold issue of the existence of substantial evidence supporting a proposition necessary to sustain a judgment, but, nevertheless, challenges the probative value of that evidence to induce belief in that proposition when viewed in the context of the entirety of the evidence before the trier of fact.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

2025"A challenge of 'insufficient evidence' requires the appellant to demonstrate that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision as opposed to a challenge that the trial court's judgment was 'against the weight of the evidence,' which presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment." Cerna-Dyer v. Dyer, 540 S.W.3d 411, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).

2019See Hopkins, 449 S.W.3d at 802 ; Cerna-Dyer, 540 S.W.3d at 415 ; Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 199 n.11.

2023“An against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge accepts there is substantial evidence supporting a proposition necessary to sustain the judgment, ‘but, nevertheless, challenges the probative value of that evidence to induce belief in that proposition when viewed in the context of the entirety of the evidence before the trier of fact.’” Id. (quoting Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178, 186 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)).

2019We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, as the trial court is in a superior position to assess credibility, and acknowledge the trial court “is free to believe none, part, or all of any witness’s testimony.” Russ v. Russ, 39 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (citing Gaar v. Gaar’s Inc., 994 S.W.2d 612, 616 (Mo. 6 All rule citations are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018). 11 App. S.D. 1999)).

2016“Improper points relied on, including those that are multifarious, preserve nothing for appellate review." Martin, 147 S.W.3d at 863 .

2016"Improper points relied on, including those that are multifarious, preserve nothing for appellate review.” Martin v. Reed, 147 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004) (quoting Stelts v. Stelts, 126 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004)). 7 .

2025(Point Two) In Point Two, consistent with the first sequential step of an against-the-weight-of- the-evidence challenge, Brownfield identifies and challenges the essential factual proposition that Darrin, Angela, and Creighton Storage's possession of Tract II was exclusive. "'Exclusive possession' means 'the claimant must hold the land for himself or herself only, and not for another.'" Pentecost, 674 S.W.3d at 208 (quoting Lancaster v. Neff, 75 S.W.3d 767, 774 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)).

2025"Joint possession with the owner is not sufficient to support title by adverse possession." Id. (citation omitted).

2025Fastnacht v. Ge, 488 S.W.3d 178, 183-84 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).

2025Even if we were to consider the misapplication of the law challenge, the facts in Bales and Hager are distinguishable from the facts here, as both cases involve potential prescriptive easements that are above the ground instead of the maintenance above ground where utilities are buried beneath the surface of the ground; thus, leaving the Huckabys with a weak argument that does not apply to the issues here. 13 continuous; (2) uninterrupted; (3) visible; and (4) adverse for (5) a period of 10 years.” Hodgkinson v. Hatten, 687 S.W.3d 201 , 206 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Warren v. Dunlap, 532 S

2025See Southside Ventures, LLC v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 574 S.W.3d 771 , 783 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) ("[A] substantial- evidence challenge . . . and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge . . . are distinct claims.") (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2025Services, Children's Div. of State, 477 S.W.3d 85, 88 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (noting that a substantial-evidence challenge, a misapplication-of-law challenge, and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge are distinct claims that must appear in separate points relied on in the appellant's brief to be preserved for appellate review).

2024In Missouri, “a vendor of real estate is entitled to an equitable lien on land for any balance of the purchase price remaining unpaid to him at the time of conveyance.” Rader v. Dawes, 651 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Mo. App. 1983).