Two Missouri appellate courts decided the same narrow question within three days of each other. One reinstated a $141,466 judgment against a landscaping company at Innsbrook. The other left a $1 million judgment standing against a Branson hotel. Read together, the opinions are a practical map of what Missouri Rule 74.05(d) actually demands from a party that did not answer a lawsuit.
The deadline that governs everything else
Two clocks matter. Under Rule 55.25(a), a defendant must file an answer within thirty days after service of the summons and petition, and once that window closes the plaintiff may seek a default. Rule 74.05(d) then governs undoing a default judgment that has been entered: the motion must be filed within a reasonable time and, in any event, no later than one year after the judgment. Both opinions discussed below were filed inside that one-year window, and both still turned on what the moving party actually placed in front of the trial court.
On September 1, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, decided Ernst v. Tainter Landscape, LLC, No. ED114018, out of Warren County. On September 3, 2026, the Southern District decided Menke v. Jai Ganesh Laxmi LLC, No. SD39201, out of Taney County. The two cases came from opposite corners of the state, involved unrelated facts, and reached opposite results. The reasoning in each one explains the other.
Neither opinion changes Missouri law. Both apply Rule 74.05(d) of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, which has read the same way for years. What the pair offers is an unusually clear picture of where the line falls, and that line matters to any Missouri business owner, contractor, or landlord who has ever set a certified-mail envelope aside to deal with later.
The two-part test, in the rule’s own words
Rule 74.05(d) states that “[u]pon motion stating facts constituting a meritorious defense and for good cause shown, an interlocutory order of default or a default judgment may be set aside,” and that “[g]ood cause includes a mistake or conduct that is not intentionally or recklessly designed to impede the judicial process.” The rule is quoted verbatim in both of this week’s opinions.
Both elements are required
Good cause. The failure to respond must have been a mistake or conduct that was not intentionally or recklessly designed to impede the judicial process. Negligence can qualify. Recklessness does not.
A meritorious defense. The motion must state facts presenting an arguable theory that would defeat the claim — “any factor likely to materially affect the substantive result of the case.” Missouri courts describe this as a low hurdle, not a high one.
Proof, not assertion. A motion to set aside is not self-proving. It must be verified or supported by affidavits or sworn testimony, and the moving party carries the evidentiary burden. Bare statements amounting to speculation or conclusions do not satisfy the rule.
Taney County: a dog attack, an insurer’s letter, and a $1 million judgment
In Menke, the plaintiff was staying at Liberty Lodge in Branson in September 2022 when his dog was attacked by two other dogs on the property. Separating them, he was bitten by the larger animal and sustained wrist injuries requiring two surgeries. He alleged the hotel had notice of the dog’s violent propensities.
Counsel sent the hotel a preservation letter in December 2022, and the hotel’s insurer corresponded with plaintiff’s counsel into March 2024. On March 18, 2024, the insurer wrote to the hotel directly, reporting a $475,000 demand and stating that because the animal-liability sublimit was $1,000 and no-fault medical payments were $5,000, it would not participate in the defense of the claim. The same letter said it was not intended to deny the insurer’s duty to defend any lawsuit that might arise, and it supplied a telephone number and an email address for questions.
Suit was filed in May 2024. The sheriff attempted service on the registered agent at the Branson address then on file with the Missouri Secretary of State, but the lodge had been sold and was operating as a Days Inn under new ownership. Service was completed through the Secretary of State, and a certified-mail return receipt came back signed. The hotel did not answer. On August 29, 2024, the circuit court entered a default judgment of $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus $194.85 in costs and post-judgment interest.
Roughly six months later, the company moved to set the judgment aside, arguing it had reasonably relied on the insurer’s assurance not to worry about the lawsuit. The plaintiff conceded a meritorious defense existed and did not dispute timeliness, so good cause was the only question. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, and the Southern District affirmed.
The court’s reasoning was narrow and factual. By the company’s own admissions, it knew as of March 18, 2024 that neither the insurer nor the attorney it had consulted would represent it, and it never used the contact information in the insurer’s letter to seek clarification. The summons plainly warned that a default judgment could be entered. The individual who described himself as handling everything at the property was upper-level management, and Missouri courts have held that a mistake at that level is more likely to be presumed reckless than excusable. On that record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding reckless conduct rather than negligence.
“Recklessness involves a deliberate choice to risk the possibility of a default judgment.”
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, quoting Wilderman v. Drawbond, 267 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)
Warren County: a landscaping contract and a reinstated judgment
In Ernst, two homeowners over the age of 60 contracted in October 2023 for roughly $120,000 of landscaping improvements at an Innsbrook residential property. The parties amended the contract in March 2024, raising the total to approximately $141,000, and by May 2024 the homeowners had paid $140,866. Their petition, filed in late December 2024, pleaded elder abuse and breach of contract, alleging the contractor did not finish on time and had allowed the construction permit to lapse.
The contractor was served in January 2025 at its Old Monroe address, did not answer, and did not appear at the June 2025 hearing, where the circuit court took evidence, found the work incomplete, and entered a default judgment of $141,466 plus costs. In July 2025, the contractor filed a motion to set aside together with an answer and affidavits from its registered agent, and on August 6, 2025, the circuit court set the default judgment aside.
The Eastern District reversed on the meritorious-defense element. The motion called the elder abuse allegation fraudulent and denied knowledge of the homeowners’ ages, which the court acknowledged arguably addressed that count. Neither the motion nor the answer, however, offered any facts responding to the breach of contract claim, and the attached affidavits verified the pleadings without supplying substantive detail about the contract. Because the moving party must present at least an arguable theory supported by some sworn evidence, and the contractor presented none as to the count on which the judgment rested, the circuit court abused its discretion. The case was remanded with directions to reinstate the original $141,466 default judgment.
That result is notable for a structural reason. Missouri appellate courts afford a circuit court broader discretion when it grants a motion to set aside than when it denies one, because public policy favors resolution on the merits. In Ernst, that deference was not enough, because there was nothing in the record for the circuit court to weigh.
What the two opinions have in common
The cases fail on different elements for the same underlying reason. In Menke, the company could not show good cause because it chose to rely on a third party after being told in writing that the third party would not defend it. In Ernst, the company could not show a meritorious defense because it filed paper denying allegations without ever saying what its defense to the contract claim was. In both, the deficiency was a failure to put specific, sworn facts in front of the judge.
Practical takeaways for Missouri owners and operators
1. Keep the registered agent and registered office current. Section 347.030 RSMo requires a Missouri limited liability company to maintain both, and section 347.033 provides that when a company fails to maintain a registered agent, or when no agent, authorized person, or organizer can be located, the Secretary of State is automatically appointed as agent for service. A stale address does not stop a lawsuit; it only removes your notice of it.
2. Treat a coverage or reservation-of-rights letter as a document requiring a written response. If a carrier says it will not participate in the defense of a claim while also saying it is not denying a duty to defend a future suit, that ambiguity is yours to resolve, in writing, before a petition is filed.
3. Read the summons, and calendar the answer date the day it arrives. Rule 55.25(a) sets the answer at thirty days after service of the summons and petition; where service is by mail, the thirty days run from the filing of the acknowledgment or the returned certified mail receipt, and where notice is by publication the period is forty-five days after first publication. Missouri summonses state that a default judgment may be entered if the defendant fails to appear, and courts treat that warning as notice a reasonable person cannot disregard.
4. If a default has been entered, act quickly and file substance. The one-year outer limit is not a target, and the motion needs specific facts on both elements, supported by affidavit or sworn testimony.
5. For the party holding the judgment, Ernst is a reminder that an order setting aside a default is reviewable.
Where this touches everyday matters
Default judgments are not an exotic corner of the law. They appear in business and contract disputes, construction and lien matters, real estate and property disputes, and personal injury claims where an insurer’s position and the insured’s obligations do not line up. For closely held Missouri companies, the exposure often traces back to a routine business housekeeping item that no one revisited after a move, an ownership change, or a sale.
Both opinions are consistent with a long line of Missouri authority, including the Supreme Court of Missouri’s 2024 decision in Steele v. Johnson Controls, Inc., cited in each for the proposition that a moving party must prove both good cause and a meritorious defense. Neither is a departure, and both are useful precisely because they are ordinary.
Helpful resources
The coverage below is drawn from several vantage points and labeled by ownership, so you can weigh each account and reach your own conclusion.
· Ernst v. Tainter Landscape, LLC, No. ED114018 (Mo. App. E.D. Sept. 1, 2026) — slip opinion, Missouri Judiciary (official state court system)
· Menke v. Jai Ganesh Laxmi LLC, No. SD39201 (Mo. App. S.D. Sept. 3, 2026) — slip opinion, Missouri Judiciary (official state court system)
· Missouri appellate opinions by hand-down date — Missouri Judiciary (official state court system)
· Rule 55.25, time of pleading — Missouri Judiciary (official state court system)
· Section 347.030 RSMo, registered office and registered agent — Missouri Revisor of Statutes (official state publisher)
· Section 347.033 RSMo, service of process on a limited liability company — Missouri Revisor of Statutes (official state publisher)
· Missouri Secretary of State, Corporations Unit — Missouri Secretary of State (official state agency), for entity search and registered agent filings
· Case summaries for Aug. 28 – Sept. 3, 2026 — The Missouri Bar (state bar association; summaries are unofficial and not court opinions)
Related on this site: General Litigation · A Signed Arbitration Agreement Did Not Count Because the Job Never Started · A Lapsed License and a Refused Inspection: Missouri Sues Two Kennel Operators
Served with a lawsuit, or holding a judgment that was set aside?
Timing controls the outcome in these cases, and the window is short. Haake Law Group PC handles business, construction, real estate, and injury disputes across the St. Louis metro and throughout Missouri.
Or call (314) 732-1547
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice or tax advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or Derek R. Haake. Court rules, statutes, and case law change, and the application of any rule depends on the specific facts of a matter. Verify current law with the relevant court or agency and consult a licensed attorney about your own situation before acting.