The recent case of McNowelly v. Sodecia Automotive Kansas City, LLC, WD88000 (May 26, 2026) addresses the evidentiary burden required to set aside a default judgment for lack of proper service.
The case reinforces a practical point with significant consequences: when service is made by a sheriff, the return of service is prima facie evidence that service was properly made. A party challenging that service must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. A mere denial is not enough.
Background
Plaintiff Lorrie McNowelly filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Sodecia Automotive Kansas City, LLC after her husband was shot and killed while working as a security guard for Sodecia. The summons and petition were served by a Deputy Sheriff at Sodecia’s business office. The return of service stated that service was made by leaving the summons and petition with “Steve Kunde HR Mgr.,” who was identified as the person in charge of the business office. When Sodecia did not answer the petition, the circuit court entered a default judgment against it for $968,339.
More than three years later, Sodecia moved to set aside the default judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(4). Sodecia maintained the judgment was void because it had not been properly served and the circuit court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction to enter the default judgment.
The Evidence Offered to Challenge Service
For its motion to set aside the default judgment, Sodecia exclusively relied on an affidavit and testimony from its plant manager, who stated that the HR manager was not the registered agent, was not an authorized agent under Sodecia’s operating agreement, and was not the person responsible for accepting legal papers. The plant manager also testified that although he was the plant manager at the time, he was not present at the facility on the day of service. He denied receiving legal documents served on the HR manager that day.
The circuit court granted Sodecia’s motion and set aside the default judgment. The Western District reversed.
Standard of Review
Although Rule 74.06(b) rulings are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, a ruling involving personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. But even with de novo review, appellate courts defer to circuit court’s factual findings that support the legal determination.
The central question was whether Sodecia produced clear and convincing evidence that service was invalid.
The Sheriff’s Return Was Valid on Its Face
Under Rule 54.13(b)(3), service on a foreign limited liability company may be made by delivering the summons and petition to an officer, partner, managing or general agent, or by leaving them at a business office with the person having charge of that office.
Sodecia first argued that the sheriff’s return was facially deficient. The Western District rejected that argument explaining that a return of service is not deficient on its face when the requisite statements of time, place, and manner of service are completed. Here, the return met the service requirements and was sufficient on its face because it expressly identified 1) the entity served; 2) the address of service; 3) the date and time of service; 4) the person served; 5) that person’s position; and 6) the manner of service.
Clear and Convincing Evidence Was Required
Because the sheriff’s return was valid on its face, the return created a presumption of proper service. To overcome that presumption, Sodecia had to present clear and convincing evidence that the HR manager was not the person in charge of the business office at the time service was made.
The Court emphasized that Sodecia carried a heavy burden. Missouri law presumes that official duties—such as service of process by a sheriff—are properly performed. A party cannot defeat that presumption merely by denying service or offering unsupported conclusions.
The Key Issue Was Not the Employee’s Corporate/Organizational Title
The Western District found Sodecia’s evidence insufficient to set aside the default judgment for lack of proper service because Sodecia focused on the wrong question. The issue regarding proper service was not whether the HR manager was Sodecia’s registered agent, managing agent, officer, or formal business manager. The issue was whether the HR manager was the person “having charge” of the business office at the time service occurred.
An employee need not be a corporate officer or registered agent to accept service if, in fact, the employee is in charge of the office at the time of service. Sodecia presented no evidence as to who was actually in charge of the business office that day but merely denied the HR Manager was in charge. Critically, Sodecia provided no facts to support its argument that the HR manager was not the person in charge of the facility when the sheriff arrived. The plant manager was not even present at the facility at the relevant time. At most, Sodecia offered a bare denial. That denial did not satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard.
The Result
Because Sodecia failed to rebut the presumption of proper service, the Western District reversed the order setting aside the default judgment and reinstated the $968,339 default judgment.
Practice Takeaways
This decision offers several important lessons:
- A sheriff’s return of service is powerful evidence of proper service.
- Challenging sheriff-made service requires clear and convincing evidence.
- A bare denial is not enough.
- The relevant question under Rule 54.13(b)(3) is who had charge of the business office at the time of service—not merely who held formal organizational corporate authority.
- A Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction must be supported by specific facts, not conclusions.
McNowelly is a strong reminder that Missouri courts give substantial weight to a sheriff’s return. Once that return is valid on its face, the burden to undo service—and a resulting default judgment—is demanding.
