Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has upheld a St. Louis County Circuit Court ruling denying multiple motions filed by a man doing business as Sykes Hauling and Tree Service, following a default judgment entered against him.
The appellate court affirmed that the lower court did not err in denying Glenn Sykes’ efforts to set aside the judgment, quash service of process, or overturn the execution sale of his property.
The case began in July 2019, when Mary A. Cook and the William Edward Cook and Mary A. Cook Trust filed a three-count petition alleging breach of contract, fraud and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
Cook claimed she hired Sykes to perform tree removal and hauling services at her property, paid him $8,525 in full before the work was completed, and that Sykes failed to finish the job.
She further asserted she incurred additional expenses to complete the project and remove waste using another company.
After Cook’s initial summons was not returned as served, a special process server was appointed in September 2019.
The record showed that personal service of the summons and petition was made to Sykes’ nephew at an address on Beachwood Avenue in St. Louis County on Sept. 28, 2019.
Sykes did not respond to the petition, and a default judgment was entered against him in February 2020 for $20,290 plus statutory interest of nine percent per year.
In 2024, Cook filed for execution of the judgment, leading to a sheriff’s sale of Sykes’s property.
A certificate of service filed that May confirmed notice of the sale was sent to Sykes at the address of the property to be sold, informing him of a June 25, 2024, sale date. The following day, a partial satisfaction of judgment was filed to reflect the proceeds from the sale.
Sykes later sought to overturn the judgment. On Jan. 31, 2025, he filed a motion to quash the execution and void the judgment.
He subsequently filed amended motions to quash process, challenge service of process, set aside the judgment, and set aside the sale of his real property.
The trial court held a hearing on March 25, 2025, and denied his motions on April 3, 2025.
On appeal, Sykes raised eight points of alleged error, primarily arguing that the judgment was void because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him due to defective service of process. He contended the return of service was deficient, that the process server was not properly identified on the summons, and that the summons was delivered to someone who did not reside at his usual place of abode.
The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo, noting that service of process is required to establish personal jurisdiction. It found that Cook met her burden by demonstrating that the procedural requirements for service had been satisfied.
The court determined that the special process server had been properly appointed by the circuit clerk under Missouri statutes and local court rules and that Missouri law did not require the process server’s name to appear on the summons.
The court also found that the return of service complied with state rules. The process server’s affidavit confirmed that service occurred on Sept. 28, 2019, when the summons and petition were left with Sykes’s nephew at the Beachwood Avenue address, described as Sykes’ usual place of abode.
The affidavit was notarized and contained sufficient detail regarding the time, place, and manner of service. Although Sykes argued that the affidavit was not filed promptly, the appellate court noted that no rule specifies a filing deadline that would invalidate the service.
At the hearing on his motion to set aside the judgment, Sykes and his nephew both testified that Sykes did not live at the Beachwood address and that the nephew was not a resident there at the time.
However, the trial court found their testimony not credible. The court took judicial notice of another case in which Sykes had listed the Beachwood address as his residence and also noted that the address appeared in official business filings for his company. Sykes presented no documentation, such as leases or bills, to support his claim that he lived elsewhere in 2019.
Because Sykes’s arguments relied solely on unsubstantiated testimony, the appellate court held that he failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had not been properly served.
The court concluded that the record supported the finding that service was properly made at Sykes’s usual place of abode to a family member residing there, satisfying Missouri’s procedural requirements.
Having rejected each of Sykes’ claims, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, leaving intact the default judgment and the sheriff’s sale of Sykes’s property.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113495
