Moore Automotive Group, Inc. v. Goffstein

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a garnishor's failure to file exceptions to a garnishee's interrogatory answers makes those answers conclusively binding in the garnishment proceeding but does not bind the garnishor in a separate civil action. The court reversed summary judgment for Sandy Goffstein and his law firm in Moore Automotive's claims arising from funds transferred by an embezzling former employee and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Rule 90.07(c) and section 525.210 make the garnishee's answers conclusively binding on the garnishor in the garnishment proceeding, but do not make those answers conclusively binding in a separate non-garnishment action. In the later action, the answers are admissible only as ordinary admissions against interest and may be explained or contradicted.
2. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on Moore Automotive's failure to file exceptions in the prior garnishment proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rule 90.07(c) and section 525.210 make a garnishor's failure to file exceptions to a garnishee's interrogatory answers conclusively binding in a separate, non-garnishment civil action.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of Moore Automotive's failure to object to the firm's interrogatory answers in the prior garnishment proceeding.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded