Hayes v. Miller (June 16, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Eastern District v. John MILLER, Jr
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Missouri (MO)
Court
Missouri Supreme Court
Decided
June 16, 2026
Disposition
Reversed and Remanded
Panel
Wright (Presiding Judge); Lay (Judge); Hamilton (Judge)
Hayes v. Miller, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1729705Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASEDFOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAWREPORTS. IT MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MOTIONFOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER. IT MAY BEMODIFIED, SUPERSEDED OR WITHDRAWN.Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District,DIVISION TWO.Laura A. HAYES, Appellant,v.John MILLER, Jr., et al., Respondents.ED113836|Filed: June 16, 2026Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, TheHonorable John R. Lasater, JudgeAttorneys and Law FirmsFor Appellant: Richard E. Coughlin, 120 S. Central Ave., Ste.650, Clayton, MO 63105For Respondent, John Miller: Herman L. Jimerson, 225 S.Meramec Ave., Ste. 508, Clayton, MO 63105For Respondents, Aaron Catling, Sr., Donna Thomas, ReneeDonato, and William Catling, Jr.: Richard E. Coughlin, 120S. Central Ave., Ste. 650, Clayton, MO 63105Before: Michael S. Wright, Presiding Judge, Virginia W. Lay,Judge, and Kathleen S. Hamilton, Judge.Virginia W. Lay, JudgeIntroduction*1 Laura Hayes (Hayes) appeals from the trial court'sjudgment in favor of John Miller III (Miller III) on hiscounterclaim for unjust enrichment. Hayes raises three pointson appeal. First, she argues the trial court erred in enteringa monetary judgment in favor of Miller III because MillerIII was never a party to the lawsuit. In Point Two, Hayesclaims the court erred by entering a monetary judgment infavor of Miller III because there was not substantial evidencethe payments made by Miller III provided a basis for an unjustenrichment claim. Lastly, Hayes alleges the court erred inentering a judgment for the full amount of damages againsther because Hayes was only a one-fifth owner of the property.We hold the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor ofMiller III, who was not a party to the suit. Accordingly, wevacate the trial court's judgment in favor of Miller III, whichis dispositive of the appeal.Factual and Procedural BackgroundIn September 2024, Hayes filed a petition for ejectmentagainst John Miller, Jr. (Miller Jr.), John Doe, and Jane Doe.Also included as defendants were Hayes’ siblings: AaronCatling, Sr. (Aaron), Donna Thomas, Renee Donato, andWilliam Catling, Jr. Hayes alleged she and her four siblingswere the owners of the property at 8328 Richard Avenue, St.Louis, Missouri 63132, per a probate court judgment. Hayesfurther alleged the property was occupied without permissionby Miller Jr., and possibly by unknown persons identified asJohn Doe and Jane Doe.In October 2024, Miller Jr. answered the petitiondenying Hayes’ allegations. Miller Jr. also asserted threecounterclaims: quiet title, unjust enrichment, and fraud inthe inducement. Miller Jr. alleged he occupied the propertyat 8328 Richard Avenue. The document referenced thedefendant as either “Mr. John Miller, Jr.,” “Mr. John Miller,”or simply “Defendant.” Attached to the answer was anaffidavit of Miller Jr. attesting to the truth and accuracy ofthe statements contained in the document. The affidavit wassigned, and the name below the signature line is “John Miller,Jr.”Hayes moved to dismiss each of Miller Jr.’s counterclaimsfor failure to state a claim. After a hearing on the motion, thetrial court dismissed the quiet title and fraud counterclaims,leaving only the unjust enrichment counterclaim. The caseproceeded to bench trial on March 24, 2025. Before the trialbegan, the court made a record of the attorneys present andwho they represented:The Court: Okay. And Mr. Jimerson.Mr. Jimerson: Mr. and Mrs. Miller, Your Honor.The Court: All right. John Miller, Jr.
Hayes v. Miller, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Mr. Jimerson: Yes.(Emphasis added).Hayes was the sole witness for the plaintiff. She testifiedthe home at 8328 Richard Avenue originally belonged to herfather, who passed away in 2015. Afterwards, the propertywas occupied by her brother Aaron until he moved to Arizona.Hayes received a letter from an attorney, Mr. Jimerson,regarding a petition for heirship of her father which had beenfiled by Aaron. On September 29, 2022, the probate courtissued its judgment determining heirs in which it determinedHayes and each of her four siblings owned a one-fifth shareof 8328 Richard Avenue.*2 Some time after the heirship judgment, Hayes went tothe property and knocked on the door. A young man openedthe door. Hayes identified herself as the owner of the propertyand asked to be let in. The young man refused her entry. OnNovember 7, 2022, Hayes, through an attorney, sent a noticeto vacate addressed to “Occupant.” Hayes received a responsefrom Mr. Jimerson dated November 14, 2022:Dear Ms. Hayes and relatives:We are in receipt of your letter dated November 7, 2022.You and your siblings have committed fraud in theinducement regarding the real estate at 8329 [sic] RichardAvenue, University City, MO 63132. You induced myclient to occupy and repair the property along with filing asuit to clear the title.Further, because you encouraged Mr. Miller to occupy andrepair this residence with intent for ownership, we willbe seeking damages for unjust enrichment of $75,000 ormore. Your claim is vexatious and fraudulent. We intend onpursuing legal remedies.The letter was cc'd to “John Miller.” On December 8, 2022,Hayes’ attorney responded to the letter, which expressedthe siblings’ concerns about a conflict of interest given Mr.Jimerson's prior and recent representation of them in theprobate action. The letter also denied the allegations put forthby “Mr. Miller.”Miller III and his wife, Barbara Miller, testified for thedefense. Miller III testified he and Barbara live across thestreet at 8331 Richard Avenue and that he became acquaintedwith Aaron while Aaron was living at 8328 Richard Avenue.Aaron told Miller III he was moving to Arizona and nobodyin his family wanted the house. Aaron stated there had beena tax sale on the house, but there was still time to reclaim it.Miller III paid the $5,454 in back taxes on July 5, 2022, andtold Aaron of the payment. Before leaving for Arizona, Aaronleft the keys with Barbara.On cross-examination, Miller III stated he never lived in 8328Richard Avenue, rather, it was his son—John Miller IV—andhis family living there. Miller III also confirmed he neverentered into a contract to purchase or lease the property, nordid he instruct his attorney to take steps to clear the title.Miller III admitted that he signed the answer to Hayes’ suitas Miller Jr.After the defense rested, Hayes moved for judgment on theunjust enrichment counterclaim, arguing Miller III was notparty to the suit. The trial court denied Hayes’ motion. OnMay 9, 2025, the trial court issued its order and judgment.The court acknowledged the petition and answer identifiedthe lead defendant as John Miller, Jr., but found the evidenceindicated Miller III was the proper defendant and wouldbe treated as such in the judgment. The court found Hayesestablished she had a right to possession of the propertyand granted her claim of ejectment against Miller III and alloccupants of 8328 Richard Avenue. As to Miller III's unjustenrichment counterclaim, the court, citing section 524.160,1found he had demonstrated expenditures to repair and updatethe residence, and awarded Miller III a total of $28,796.08.Hayes filed a motion to amend the judgment or, in thealternative, for a new trial in which she renewed her argumentthat Miller III was not a party to the suit. Hayes allegedthat because this was an ejectment action, the only partiesto the suit would be the property owner and the occupants.Hayes stated Miller III was neither the property owner northe occupant, rather it was Miller Jr. who was occupying theproperty and had been served with her petition.2 The courtdenied Hayes’ post-trial motion. This appeal follows.Discussion*3 This case involves a strange situation in which Hayes, theproperty owner, brought an ejectment action against a JohnMiller, Jr., as well as John and Jane Doe, who Hayes believedto be occupying the property. In reality, it was John Miller IVand his family living at 8328 Richard Avenue. Meanwhile, itwas actually John Miller III participating in the litigation as
Hayes v. Miller, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3John Miller, Jr. This raises the question: Will the real JohnMiller please stand up?Hayes presents three points on appeal. However, given ourdispositive ruling below, we need not reach Points Two orThree, which complain of the sufficiency of the evidence ofMiller III's unjust enrichment claim3 and the allocation ofdamages on that claim, respectively.Non-PartyAs a preliminary matter, Hayes argues the trial court erredin entering judgment in favor of Miller III because he wasnot a party to the suit. Hayes claims Miller III was never aparty to the suit, there is no evidence he was a party, and theevidence established he was not a party. We agree becausethe evidence established Miller III was neither the propertyowner nor the occupant, and Miller III neither moved to join,nor was permitted to join, as a codefendant.Trial courts only have the authority to grant relief for oragainst parties to an action. Section 511.030.1 provides:Judgment may be given for or against one or more ofseveral plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of severaldefendants; and it may determine the ultimate rights of theparties on each side, as between themselves, and it maygrant to the plaintiff or the defendant any affirmative orother relief to which he may be entitled.See also Campbell v. Webb, 363 Mo. 1192, 258 S.W.2d 595,605 (1953) (holding a person who was never a party plaintiffcould not recover).An ejectment action “shall be prosecuted in the real names ofthe parties thereto, and shall be brought against the person inpossession of the premises claimed.” Section 524.040.4 “Theperson from or through whom the defendant claims title to thepremises may, on motion, be made a codefendant.” Section524.050.Hayes testified that following the probate court's heirshipdetermination, she attempted to enter the home at 8328Richard Avenue, but was denied entry by a young man.Although it is unclear how Hayes determined John Miller, Jr.was the occupant and therefore the proper defendant, Hayesbrought the ejectment action against John Miller, Jr., JohnDoe, and Jane Doe. Hayes indicated the man present at trial,apparently Miller III, was not the person who had answeredthe door and added that this was the first time she had everseen Miller III. Furthermore, Miller III testified he did not liveat 8328 Richard Avenue, rather it was his son's residence.Based on the testimony, it is evident that Miller III wasnot a party to the ejectment action. He was not the nameddefendant. He did not move to join the suit as a codefendant.He did not own the property, nor did he occupy the property.It is unclear how the trial court determined Miller III wasthe proper defendant. It is clear, though, this determinationwas erroneous and that, consequently, the court exceeded itsauthority in awarding judgment in favor of Miller III, a non-party, for unjust enrichment.*4 Miller III urges us to affirm the judgment because theerror is a non-fatal misnomer. He argues the correct party wasbefore the court and participated in the litigation, and thatHayes was not prejudiced. Miller III also cites the general rulethat a party cannot acquiesce to an error at trial and then claimreversible error on appeal. These arguments are flawed fortwo reasons.First, the trial court's choosing a different defendant was nota misnomer. “A misnomer is a misdescription or a mistake insome aspect of a party's name. It occurs where a summons isserved on the right party but with the wrong name.” Johnsonv. Delmar Gardens West, Inc., 335 S.W.3d 83, 87 (Mo. App.E.D. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Hayes’ petition likelydid contain a misnomer in that it named John Miller, Jr. andit was served on the occupant, apparently John Miller IV. Butthat issue is not before this Court.Second, even if Hayes had not raised the issue, this Court hasan obligation to determine its own jurisdiction. Bureaus Inv.Grp. v. Williams, 310 S.W.3d 297, 299 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).“In cases where the trial court has exceeded its authority inentering an order or judgment, we cannot consider the meritsof the appeal, but we have the jurisdiction to confine a trialcourt to its authority.” Id. at 300 (citing In re Est. of Shaw,256 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Mo. banc 2008)). Nevertheless, it is notclear from the record that Hayes acquiesced to Miller III'sparticipation in the suit.After sending the occupant a notice to vacate, Hayes receiveda response from Mr. Jimerson which referenced “Mr. Miller”and was cc'd to “John Miller.” Hayes brought the ejectmentaction against John Miller, Jr., who answered the petitionand asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The case
Hayes v. Miller, --- S.W.3d ---- (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4proceeded to trial, where Miller III's attorney even announcedhis appearance for John Miller, Jr.Hayes testified Miller III was not the young man whoanswered the door and that she had never seen Miller III untiltrial. Furthermore, Miller III admitted he signed the answer asJohn Miller, Jr. Hayes then, moving for judgment on MillerIII's unjust enrichment counterclaim, argued Miller III wasnot party to the suit. Hayes renewed that argument in herafter-trial motion, and it is now the primary basis for herappeal. We cannot say she acquiesced to Miller III's arguablyfurtive participation in the trial proceedings. Accordingly, wevacate the trial court's judgment for Miller III on his unjustenrichment claim.5ConclusionFor the reasons set forth above, we vacate the trial court'sjudgment in favor of John Miller III on the unjust enrichmentcounterclaim.Michael S. Wright, Presiding Judge, concurs.Kathleen S. Hamilton, Judge, concurs.All Citations--- S.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 1729705Footnotes1All section references are to RSMo (2016). Section 524.160 permits a person who has been dispossessed of propertyto recover compensation for improvements made in good faith prior to having notice of adverse title.2We note that Miller III's response to the motion to amend contained several citations to nonexistent cases.3Compounding the confusion, the trial court seemingly transformed the unjust enrichment counterclaim into a claim undersection 524.160. Though we do not reach the merits of the issue, we note that Miller III was not in possession of theproperty and therefore would be unable to make a claim under section 524.160.4We note there appears to be some confusion as to the proper named defendant. Hayes brought the suit against JohnMiller, Jr., but acknowledges in her brief the defendant should be John Miller IV. None of the Millers—Jr., III, or IV—haveappealed the ejectment, so whether ejectment was proper is not before this Court.5Normally, when a trial court enters an order it has no authority to enter, we reverse and remand with instructions tovacate the judgment. List v. Dir. of Revenue, 469 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015). But, Rule 84.14 authorizes usto dispense with the remand process and vacate the judgment “when the record and evidence on appeal give us somedegree of confidence in the reasonableness, fairness and accuracy of that disposition.” Linhardt v. Dir. of Revenue, 320S.W.3d 202, 204-05 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access