Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals’ Eastern District has reversed a Warren County circuit court decision that set aside a default judgment against Tainter Landscape, LLC, directing the lower court to reinstate a 2025 judgment awarding $141,466 plus court costs to two individuals.
The appellate court, in an opinion filed Sept. 1, found that the company’s motion to undo the default judgment did not provide facts supporting a meritorious defense to the homeowners’ breach-of-contract claim.
The appellate court concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion when it set aside the judgment on Aug. 6, 2025.
Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.05(d), a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must state facts constituting a meritorious defense and show good cause for failing to respond.
The appeals court found that Tainter Landscape’s motion and accompanying answer did not present facts related to a defense against the breach-of-contract claim.
Gregory Ernst and Sandra Sheldon had contracted with Tainter Landscape on Oct. 6, 2023, for approximately $120,000 in landscaping improvements at their Innsbrook residential property in Warren County.
The parties amended the agreement in March 2024, increasing the project’s total cost to approximately $141,000. By May 2024, the homeowners had paid the company $140,866, according to the court’s opinion.
Their petition, filed in late December 2024, included claims of elder abuse and breach of contract.
The petition alleged that both plaintiffs were over age 60 and that the company exploited their elderly status. In the breach-of-contract claim, the homeowners alleged that Tainter Landscape did not complete the project on time, citing its failure to properly renew a construction permit with Innsbrook after the permit lapsed in October 2024.
The petition sought $63,970 in compensatory damages and $191,910 in other damages. Before filing suit, Ernst and Sheldon sent the company a certified letter outlining their grievances.
A Warren County sheriff’s deputy served Tainter Landscape at its Old Monroe address on Jan. 13, 2025, the opinion states. The company did not answer the petition.
After the homeowners requested a June 4 hearing, the circuit court mailed notice to the same address. Tainter Landscape again did not acknowledge the matter or appear at the hearing.
At that hearing, the circuit court received evidence about the contract, determined that the company had failed to complete the specified work, found the company in default and ordered it to pay $141,466 in damages plus court costs.
Tainter Landscape filed a motion on July 17, 2025, seeking to set aside the default judgment and filed an answer to the petition. The company called the elder-abuse allegations “fraudulent and designed to mislead the court” and asserted that it had a meritorious defense based on its answer and an affidavit from registered agent Craig Tainter. But the appeals court found that the answer merely denied the allegations and disclaimed knowledge of the homeowners’ ages.
The court said the answer did not detail new, specific facts or potential defenses, and that Tainter’s affidavits only verified the pleadings without providing substantive detail about the contract.
Although the court noted that Tainter Landscape arguably offered a response to the elder-abuse claim, it found that neither the motion nor the answer gave facts supporting a defense to the breach-of-contract claim.
The court said the company neither presented a breach-of-contract defense nor offered evidence to support one.
It reversed the order setting aside the default judgment and remanded the case to the Warren County circuit court with instructions to reinstate the June 4, 2025 judgment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three case number: ED114018
