Sprung v. Negwer Materials, Inc.
Missouri Supreme Court
775 S.W.2d 97 (1989)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Melvin Sprung, Jr. (plaintiff) filed a personal-injury action against Negwer Materials, Inc. (Negwer) (defendant). A secretary at Kortenhof and Ely (K&L), the law firm representing Negwer’s insurer, neglected to file K&L’s entry of appearance and request for more time to answer. K&L’s case-tracking systems failed to alert the firm that it had not filed a pleading. Sprung’s attorney, Godfrey Padberg, unaware that Negwer was represented, moved for entry of default and obtained a $1.5 million judgment for Sprung. Shortly thereafter, K&L, unaware of the default, mailed an answer and discovery request to Padberg. Padberg told Sprung that if he advised K&L of the default, Sprung could lose his verdict. Sprung instructed Padberg not to tell K&L. Padberg let the 30-day period for seeking to set aside a default pass before advising K&L of the judgment. The trial court set aside the judgment on equitable grounds. The appellate court reversed. The Missouri Supreme Court remanded for a hearing on whether Padberg’s actions supported a separate action in equity to set aside the judgment. On remand, the trial court denied relief. Negwer appealed, claiming that the judgment should have been set aside on equitable grounds and that Padberg’s failure to advise K&L of the judgment provided a basis for setting the judgment aside.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Billings, J.)
Concurrence (Rendlen, J.)
Dissent (Blackmar, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
