Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY Honorable Larry G.
E. SCOTT, J.
appeals the denial of his Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside a
petitioned to dissolve the parties' long-time marriage.
Several months after Husband entered his appearance, but did
not answer or otherwise respond, the court entered a default
judgment in Wife's proposed form.
days later, Husband moved to set that judgment aside, citing,
inter alia, Rule 75.01, which provides that a court
maintains control over its civil judgment for 30 days after
entry. The court granted that motion and set the judgment
into the case, Wife's attorney filed a "Joint
Affidavit for Judgment (Pursuant to Local Rule 68.8)"
(hereafter "Affidavit") bearing both parties'
notarized signatures, plus a proposed judgment nearly
identical to the one previously set aside, except for a
significant reduction of Husband's equalization payment
to Wife. The court entered the proposed judgment without a
hearing via docket entry as follows:
18 Aug 2016 Judgment on Dissolution
JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Cause submitted by affidavit pursuant to local rule.
Court finds it has jurisdiction of the parties and the
Dissolution of marriage is granted.
The distribution of marital and non-marital property and
debts is approved as fair and not unconscionable.
All per written judgment entered.
/S/ JUDGE LARRY G. LUNA
who was still represented by counsel, filed no motion while
the court maintained control over the judgment and took no
five months later and with new counsel,  Husband moved per
Rule 74.06(b) to set aside the judgment, alleging that it was
irregular and void due to noncompliance with a local court
rule. Husband noticed his motion for hearing; the parties and
their attorneys appeared; argument was heard; and the court
took the matter under advisement. The court later denied the
motion and entered formal judgment accordingly. We allowed
Husband to appeal out of time and consider his two complaints
in reverse order.
to Conduct Evidentiary Hearing
complains that the court denied his motion without an
evidentiary hearing. Yet he makes no effort to show how that
prejudiced him and cites no evidence that he was precluded
from presenting to the court. We review for prejudice, not
mere error. Pruett v. Pruett, 280 S.W.3d 749, 751
(Mo.App. 2009) (also noting that a complaint about excluded
evidence requires a specific and definite offer of proof to
inform the trial court of the proffered evidence and allow an
appellate court to assess the prejudicial effect of its
we do not see and Husband does not show that he requested to
offer evidence to the trial court or was refused that
opportunity, or that he objected when the court took his
motion under advisement after hearing only the arguments of
counsel, or that he raised any complaint below prior to
It is well recognized that a party should not be entitled on
appeal to claim error on the part of the trial court when the
party did not call attention to the error at trial and did
not give ...