Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY. Honorable R. Craig
Carter, Circuit Judge.
Acting Pro se - Shane C. Young of Licking, MO.
for Respondent (No brief filed.) -- Christopher D. Wade of
Burrell, P.J. - Concurs, Gary W. Lynch, J. -- Concurs.
Steffen Rahmeyer, J.
Christopher Young (" Father" ) appeals from the
trial court's judgment dismissing his motion for
modification of his right to visitation with his child with
Crystal Kay Terrill (" Mother" ) because the
motion failed to state a cause of action. We reverse and
remand for further proceedings. The motion stated a cause of
action for modification of Father's right to visitation
with the child under section 452.400.2(1), RSMo Cum.Supp.
2013, and for enforcement of a paternity, custody and child
support judgment's clause that, by its terms, requires
Mother to provide Father with written notice of " any
proposed relocation of the principal residence" of the
" [A] motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action is solely a test of the adequacy of the
plaintiff's petition." Reynolds v. Diamond Foods
& Poultry, Inc., 79 S.W.3d 907, 909 (Mo. banc 2002). A
court reviews the petition " in an almost academic
manner, to determine if the facts alleged meet the elements
of a recognized cause of action, or of a cause that might be
adopted in that case." Nazeri v. Mo. Valley
Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo. banc 1993). In so doing,
a court takes a plaintiff's averments as
true and liberally grants plaintiff all reasonable
inferences. It will not weigh the credibility or
persuasiveness of facts alleged. Id.
Accord, Reynolds, 79 S.W.3d at 909.
An appellate court reviews a trial court's grant of a
motion to dismiss de novo. Lynch v. Lynch,
260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. banc 2008). It will consider only
the grounds raised in the motion to dismiss in reviewing the
propriety of the trial court's dismissal of a petition,
and, in so doing, it will not consider matters outside the
pleadings. Brennan By and Through Brennan v. Curators of
the Univ. of Mo., 942 S.W.2d 432, 434 (Mo.App.1997).
Here, the merits of Lake St. Louis's declaratory judgment
claims regarding its boundaries were not a ground of the
motion to dismiss and, therefore, are not reached on this
appeal. See Rule 55.27(a). This Court considers
solely whether the grounds raised in the motion supported
City of Lake Saint Louis v. City of O'Fallon,
324 S.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 2010).