The
Indian Religion Nathan Mcgovern
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-snake-and-the-mongoose-theemergence-of-identity-in-early-indian-religion-nathan-mcgovern/
ebookmass.com
Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment
Notes and Problems
H. Former Adjudication
Ison v. Thomas
Notes and Problems
I. Appeals
Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
Notes and Problems
Note on Appellate Structure and Jurisdiction
Note: Civil Procedure in Your Substantive Courses Assessment Questions—And a Word About Using These Questions Analysis of Assessment Questions
PART I: THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR U.S. LITIGATION
A. Approaching Civil Procedure
B. Constitutional Limits in Litigation
1. The Idea of Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction and the Constitution
3. The Constitution and Choice of Law
Chapter 2: Personal Jurisdiction
A. The Origins
Pennoyer v. Neff Notes and Problems
B. The Modern Constitutional Formulation of Power
1. Redefining Constitutional Power International Shoe Co. v. Washington Notes and Problems McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. Hanson v. Denckla
Notes and Problems
2. Absorbing In Rem Jurisdiction Shaffer v. Heitner Notes and Problems
3. Specific Jurisdiction: The Modern Cases World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson Notes and Problems
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro Notes and Problems Abdouch v. Lopez Notes and Problems
4. General Jurisdiction
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown Notes and Problems Daimler AG v. Bauman
Notes and Problems
Burnham v. Superior Court Notes and Problems
Note on the Mechanics of Jurisdiction: Challenge and Waiver Notes and Problems
C. Consent as a Substitute for Power Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
Notes and Problems
D. The Constitutional Requirement of Notice
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Notes and Problems
Notes and Problems on Service of Process
E. Self-Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power: Long-Arm Statutes, Venue, and Discretionary Refusal of Jurisdiction
1. Long-Arm Statutes as a Restraint on Jurisdiction
Gibbons v. Brown
Notes and Problems
2. Venue as a Further Localizing Principle
Notes and Problems
Thompson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Declining Jurisdiction: Transfer and Forum Non Conveniens
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
Notes and Problems
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 3: Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts
A. The Idea and the Structure of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
Notes and Problems
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
Redner v. Sanders
Notes and Problems
Hertz Corp. v. Friend
Notes and Problems
Note: Amount in Controversy
D. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Notes and Problems
In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation Szendrey-Ramos v. First Bancorp
Notes and Problems
E. Removal
Notes and Problems
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 4: State Law in Federal Courts: Erie and Its Entailments
A. State Courts as Lawmakers in a Federal System
1. The Issue in Historical Context
2. Constitutionalizing the Issue Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Notes and Problems
B. The Limits of State Power in Federal Courts
1. Interpreting the Constitutional Command of Erie Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
Notes and Problems
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative
Notes and Problems
2. De-constitutionalizing Erie
Hanna v. Plumer
Notes and Problems
3. Determining the Scope of Federal Law: Avoiding and Accommodating Erie Semtek Intl. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
Notes and Problems
Note: Interpreting State Law: An Entailment of Erie Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
PART II: THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION
A. Approaching Civil Procedure
B. Choosing Procedure
C. A Roadmap for Exploring Choices
Chapter 5: Incentives to Litigate
A. Litigation in the United States at the Start of the Twenty-First Century Notes and Problems
B. Reasons to Litigate: Dollars, Orders, and Declarations
1. Damages
Troupe v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
Notes and Problems
a. Damage Amounts: Ceilings and Floors
b. Categorizing Damages
Notes and Problems
2. Specific Relief
Lucy Webb Hayes Natl. Training School v. Geoghegan
Notes and Problems
3. Declaratory Relief
Notes and Problems
4. Temporary Remedies
a. Preliminary Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders: The Basic Problem Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Notes and Problems
b. Provisional Remedies and Due Process Fuentes v. Shevin
Notes and Problems
C. Financing Litigation
1. The “American” and “English” Rules About Attorneys’ Fees
Notes and Problems
2. Insurance, the Contingent Fee, and Alternative Litigation Finance
a. Insurance
Notes and Problems
b. The Contingent Fee
Notes and Problems
c. Alternative Litigation Finance
Notes and Problems
3. Public Subsidies and Professional Charity
Notes and Problems
4. From Fee Spreading to Fee Shifting
a. The Common Fund
Notes and Problems
b. By Contract
c. By Common Law
d. By Statute
Notes and Problems
Problem: How to Lose by Winning
Notes and Problems
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 6: Pleading
A. The Story of Pleading
1. Of Stories and Jurisdiction
Notes and Problems
2. Plaintiff’s Story, Defendant’s Story
3. One Function of Pleading: Establishing the Law
Notes and Problems
Haddle v. Garrison (S.D. Ga. 1996)
Notes and Problems
Haddle v. Garrison (11th Cir. 1997)
Notes and Problems
Haddle v. Garrison (525 U.S. 121 (1998))
Notes and Problems
4. Another Function of Pleading: Sorting Strong Cases from Weak Cases?
a. The “Ordinary” Case: How Much Detail in a Complaint?
Notes and Problems
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Notes and Problems
b. Special Cases: Requiring and Forbidding Specificity in Pleading Stradford v. Zurich Insurance Co.
Notes and Problems
5. Allocating the Elements of a Claim
Jones v. Bock
Notes and Problems
B. Ethical Limitations in Pleading—and in Litigation Generally
Notes and Problems
Walker v. Norwest Corp.
Notes and Problems
Christian v. Mattel, Inc.
Notes and Problems
C. Responding to the Complaint
1. Default
2. The Pre-Answer Motion (and a Close Post-Answer Relative)
Notes and Problems
Notes and Problems
Notes and Problems
3. Answer
a. Denials
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.
Notes and Problems
b. Affirmative Defenses
Notes and Problems
4. Reply
Notes and Problems
5. Amendments
Notes and Problems
a. The Basic Problem: Prejudice Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp.
Notes and Problems
b. Statutes of Limitations and Relation Back
Moore v. Baker
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 7: Discovery
A. Modern Discovery
B. The Stages of Discovery
1. Required Disclosures—First Round
Notes and Problems
2. Documents, Things, Land, and Bytes: Requests for Production (Rules 34 and 45)
Notes and Problems
3. Asking Questions in Writing, Seeking Admissions: Interrogatories and Admissions (Rules 33 and 36)
Notes and Problems
4. Asking Questions in Person: Depositions (Rule 30) and Physical and Mental Evaluations (Rule 35)
Note on Physical and Mental Examinations
Notes and Problems
5. Pretrial Witness Lists and the Pretrial Order
David and Goliath Do Discovery: A Taxonomy of Problems
C. The Scope of Discovery
1. Relevance
Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
Notes and Problems
2. Proportionality and Privacy Price v. Leflore County Detention Center Rengifo v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Privilege
Notes and Problems
4. Trial Preparation Material Hickman v. Taylor
Notes and Problems
D. Experts
Notes and Problems
Thompson v. The Haskell Co. Chiquita International Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer
Notes and Problems
E. Ensuring Compliance and Controlling Abuse of Discovery
1. Types of Discovery Disputes
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLP
Notes and Problems
2. Ensuring Compliance
Notes and Problems
3. Remedies: Management and Sanctions Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 8: Resolution Without Trial
A. The Pressure to Choose Adjudication or an Alternative
1. Default and Default Judgments
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center
Notes and Problems
2. Scheduling Orders and Failure to Prosecute: Involuntary Dismissal
3. Voluntary Dismissal
Notes and Problems
B. Avoiding Adjudication
1. Negotiation and Settlement: Why Settle? And How?
Jane Smart v. GrowCo, Inc.
a. Contracting to Dismiss
Notes and Problems
b. Third-Party Participation in Settlement: Facilitation, Encouragement, and Coercion Notes and Problems
c. Contracting for Confidentiality Notes and Problems
Kalinauskas v. Wong
Notes and Problems
2. Contracting for Private Adjudication: Arbitration and Its Variants
Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
Notes and Problems
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
Notes and Problems
Ferguson v. Writers Guild of America, West
Notes and Problems
C. Adjudication Without Trial: Summary Judgment Notes and Problems
1. Summary Judgment in Action: The Burdens on the Moving and Nonmoving Parties Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
Notes and Problems
2. Summary Judgment in Action: How Courts Should Assess the Evidence Tolan v. Cotton
Notes and Problems
Bias v. Advantage International, Inc.
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 9: The Trier and the Trial
A. Choosing and Challenging Judges Notes and Problems
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Notes and Problems
B. Sharing Power with a Jury
1. When May a Jury Decide?
Notes and Problems
2. Choosing Jurors
3. Challenging Jurors
Notes and Problems
C. What Will Trial Be About? The Final Pretrial Conference and Order Monfore v. Phillips
Notes and Problems
D. Judges Guiding Juries
1. Instruction and Comment
2. Excluding Improper Influences
3. Size and Decision Rules
E. Judges Controlling Juries: The Directed Verdict
Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad
Notes and Problems
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Chamberlain
Notes and Problems
F. Judges Undoing Verdicts: The New Trial
1. The Justifications for New Trials
a. Flawed Procedures
b. Flawed Verdicts
Lind v. Schenley Industries
Notes and Problems
2. Conditional New Trials
a. New Trial Limited to Damages
b. Remittitur and Additur
G. The Limits of Judicial Power: The Reexamination Clause and the Jury as a Black Box Peterson v. Wilson
Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 10: Appeal
A. Who Can Appeal?
1. A Losing Party: Adversity Notes and Problems
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cunningham Notes and Problems
2. Who Raised the Issue Below: Of Waivers and Sandbags
Notes and Problems
3. Who Was Not Deterred from Appealing
B. When a Decision May Be Reviewed: “Finality”
1. The Final Judgment Rule
a. Appellate Jurisdiction and the Final Judgment Rule Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel Notes and Problems
b. Defining the Moment of Judgment Notes and Problems
2. Exceptions to the Final Judgment Rule
a. Practical Finality Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser Notes and Problems
b. Injunctions Notes and Problems
c. Interlocutory Appeals
d. Mandamus Notes and Problems
C. Scope of Review
1. Law and Fact Anderson v. Bessemer City Notes and Problems
2. Harmless Error Harnden v. Jayco, Inc. Notes and Problems Assessment Questions Analysis of Assessment Questions
Chapter 11: Respect for Judgments
A. Claim Preclusion
1. Precluding the “Same” Claim a. Efficiency
Frier v. City of Vandalia Notes and Problems
b. Consistency—The Logical Implications of the Former Judgment Notes and Problems
2. Between the “Same” Parties Taylor v. Sturgell Notes and Problems
3. After a Final Judgment
4. After a Judgment “on the Merits” Notes and Problems
Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Notes and Problems
B. Issue Preclusion
1. The Same Issue Notes and Problems
2. An Issue “Actually Litigated and Determined” Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Parks Notes and Problems
3. An Issue “Essential to the Judgment” Notes and Problems
4. Between Which Parties? Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore Notes and Problems
C. The Boundaries of Preclusion
1. Claim Preclusion
2. Issue Preclusion
D. Repose: Collateral Attack and Reopened Judgments
1. Full Faith and Credit as a Bar to Collateral Attack Durfee v. Duke
Notes and Problems
2. The Reopened Judgment as an Alternative to Collateral Attack United States v. Beggerly Notes and Problems Assessment Questions Analysis of Assessment Questions
PART III: PROBING THE BOUNDARIES: ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AND PARTIES
Chapter 12: Joinder
A. Joinder of Claims
1. Joinder of Claims by Plaintiff
a. Historical Background
b. The Federal Rules
c. Joinder and Jurisdiction
Notes and Problems
2. Claims by the Defendant: Counterclaims Plant v. Blazer Financial Services
Notes and Problems
B. Joinder of Parties
1. By Plaintiffs Mosley v. General Motors Corp. Notes and Problems
2. By Defendants: Third-Party Claims
Price v. CTB, Inc.
Notes and Problems
3. Compulsory Joinder
Temple v. Synthes Corp.
Notes and Problems
Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center
Notes and Problems
C. Intervention
Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Notes and Problems
Martin v. Wilks
Notes and Problems
D. Interpleader
Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Davis
Notes and Problems
E. Class Actions
1. Introduction
2. The Class Action and the Constitution
a. Representative Adequacy
Hansberry v. Lee
Notes and Problems
b. Personal Jurisdiction
Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts
Notes and Problems
3. The Class Action and Federalism
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
Notes and Problems
4. Statutory Requirements
Notes and Problems
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Notes and Problems
5. Settlement of Class Actions and the “Settlement Class” Notes and Problems
a. Fees
Notes and Problems
b. Damages and Injunctive Relief
c. Settlement and Dismissal
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor Notes and Problems
Assessment Questions
Analysis of Assessment Questions
Table of Cases
Table of Citations to the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.)
Table of Citations to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Table of Authorities
Index
James, G. Hazard, and J. Leubsdorf, Civil Procedure (5th ed. 2001), is cited as James, Hazard, and Leubsdorf; C. Wright, Federal Courts (5th ed. 1994), is cited as Wright, Federal Courts; J. Moore, Federal Practice and Procedure (1969), is cited as Moore; C. Wright, A. Miller, and E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure (1969), is cited as Wright and Miller.
Those whose assistance was acknowledged in the prefaces of earlier editions created the foundations on which this book rests. The senior author is delighted to report that after seven editions in which he had to fly solo, he has been able to entice Professor Joanna C. Schwartz to join this edition. Prof. Schwartz brings to the book not only insights from practice as a civil litigator but also the pedagogical acumen of a prize-winning teacher.
Both of us want to thank many teachers and students who have used previous editions for detailed, thoughtful, and constructive suggestions. As with past editions, this one has been greatly improved by the library staff at UCLA’s Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library, whose ingenuity is exceeded only by their helpfulness.
We hope you like the result.
November 2015
Stephen C. Yeazell
Joanna C. Schwartz
Sylvester Pennoyer, photograph. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
Tallyho Coaching, Sioux City, photograph. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
a party is entitled to the discovery he seeks—can determine who wins and who loses.
But if procedure were only a set of rules about the etiquette of lawsuits, it would be hard to justify its place in the first-year curriculum. Another facet of procedure justifies that place: Procedure mirrors our most basic notions of fairness and the meaning of justice. If coming to a quick decision were all that mattered, we could flip coins to decide lawsuits. We don’t flip coins because solving an important dispute without reference to its merits strikes us as unjust. This bedrock principle of fairness and justice finds expression both in the details of procedural design and in several parts of the U.S. Constitution, most notably the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Commentators, litigants, and courts are not, however, in agreement about what procedural mechanisms best reflect these overarching constitutional values. Some argue that our system is overly obsessed with permitting the adversarial airing of grievances. Proposed solutions range from streamlining adjudication to nonadjudicative dispute resolution. The system’s defenders argue both that the critics overstate the pathologies of modern civil litigation and that adjudication has proved to be a major force for social justice, economic growth, and political stability over the past two centuries. Such conflicting views lurk in the background at every turn of our path.
This chapter seeks to give you some feel for procedural issues as they arise in the life cycle of a civil lawsuit. It will raise more questions than it answers, but it will offer you a sense of the course of civil litigation and a taste of the kinds of problems lawyers describe as procedural. Seeing the whole picture all at once will make more meaningful our closer investigation of these issues in the weeks to come.
We start with a simple and plausible fact situation: Peters, a student at the University of Michigan, spent his winter vacation in Champaign, Illinois, where his parents have recently moved from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While visiting his parents, Peters was seriously injured in an automobile accident with Dodge, a lifelong resident of Champaign and owner of a popular ice cream parlor in the town. The remainder of this chapter deals with issues that might flow from this everyday occurrence.
2. Clients, Lawyers, Procedure, and Strategy
Consider first whether and how this accident might enter the formal legal system. Most such episodes will never get near lawyers or courts. If Peters had adequate medical insurance and no lost wages, he might have little reason to sue Dodge. Dodge (or his insurer) might well offer Peters a satisfactory settlement before a suit is filed. Or Peters might want to sue but be unable to find a lawyer who would take his case: Most plaintiffs’ lawyers work on a contingent fee basis in such cases (meaning they are paid a portion of any recovery the plaintiff receives), and the lawyer might not think the potential for recovery or the amount recoverable warrants the time she would have to invest in the case.
These three alternatives describe the fate of most disputes that arise in our society, with the consequence that they will never enter the official judicial system. For the rest of this book—and for the rest of law school—you will be dealing with the exceptional instances, the disputes that do find their way into court.
What would need to happen? First, Peters would probably need to find a lawyer. (In the United States individuals can prosecute their cases themselves—in pro per. or pro se, in the jargon of the law*—but most consider lawyers worthwhile for litigation, in part because lawyers know their way around the procedural system.)
We’ll deal later, in Chapter 5, with how people in Peters’s situation might find a lawyer; this matters a good deal, and because it does, it deserves more attention than it can get in this introduction.
But—even in this introduction—it bears emphasizing that the lawyer-client relationship involves two decisions at the outset. First, Peters, the prospective client, must locate a lawyer. For clients like Peters, that can be a bewildering process. Most individuals deal with lawyers quite infrequently, and therefore lack knowledge about what qualities to look for. Rules of professional ethics allow lawyers to advertise, but only in a limited way, and we have yet to develop a robust and reliable way of rating lawyers. So it’s likely that someone in Peters’s position would have to rely on word-of-mouth recommendations: Did a friend or relative have a lawyer she would recommend?
Suppose Peters does get such a recommendation and approaches Ursula Sands, a lawyer who practices in Champaign, where the accident occurred and where Peters’s family lives. Further suppose that Sands’s practice includes the kind of case Peters contemplates (as opposed, say, to a practice limited to wills or business transactions). When he visits Sands’s office, the second decision must be made: Does Sands want to represent Peters? Experienced lawyers will tell you that the most important decision they make in a lawsuit is whether to take on a particular client. That initial decision derives its importance from the fact that professional rules prevent lawyers from simply abandoning clients if they become unhappy with the progress of the case. So Sands wants to be sure about at least two things before she takes on Peters as a client. First, she wants to know whether she can rely on his truthfulness and candor. It’s a dreadful thing for a lawyer to discover, halfway through a case, that her client has fabricated part of the story or has omitted critical facts. We will learn a bit more in Chapter 6 about an attorney’s obligation to double check her client’s claims. Second, for reasons you’ll better understand after reading Chapter 5,
bounds it is up to Congress to decide the precise subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress has enacted a number of statutes authorizing federal district courts (the trial courts of the federal system) to hear certain kinds of cases. The most important statutes at this point in our exploration are 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1332(a).* Read those two statutes and decide which might apply to Peters v. Dodge. Then read the following case. Does it tell Peters’s lawyer whether she can file his claim in federal court?
Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. 2003 WL 21555767 (D. Kan. 2003)
VAN BEBBER, Senior J.
Plaintiffs, Mary Ann Hawkins [and Rachel Baldwin, representing] the Estate of James Patrick Creal… bring this action…against Defendants, Masters Farms, Inc., Harhge Farms, Inc., and Jack E. Masters. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a December 8, 2000 traffic accident in which a tractor driven by Defendant Masters collided with Mr. Creal’s automobile, resulting in the death of Mr. Creal. Plaintiffs filed this action in federal court alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Defendants dispute that there is complete diversity among the parties, and the matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is granted.
I. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Standard Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally take one of two forms: (1) a facial attack on the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a challenge to the actual facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based. A court reviewing a facial challenge must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations regarding jurisdiction as true. In contrast, a court reviewing a factual attack may not presume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true. Rather, “[a] court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).” Here, Defendants mount a factual attack on Plaintiffs’ allegations of diversity subject matter jurisdiction. In addition to Plaintiffs’ complaint itself, deposition testimony and other documents have been submitted for the court’s review. As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that jurisdiction is proper. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the presumption is against federal jurisdiction.
II. Factual Background
On December 8, 2000, Mr. Creal was killed in an automobile accident on Mineral Point Road, just south of Troy, Kansas, when his 1988 Chevrolet van collided with a New Holland tractor driven by Defendant Masters [a citizen of Kansas]. At the time of his death, Mr. Creal was living in Troy with his wife, Elizabeth Creal, and her children. He was approximately forty-four years old when he died.
James and Elizabeth Creal first met in St. Joseph, Missouri in November 1999. Mr. Creal had lived in St. Joseph for most of his life, while Mrs. Creal resided in Troy for the majority of her life. When the couple first met, Mr. Creal was living at his mother’s home in St. Joseph, where he had been residing since obtaining a divorce from his previous wife.
Beginning in January 2000, Mr. Creal began spending the night at the apartment Mrs. Creal shared with her children on South Park Street in Troy. Initially, Mr. Creal would return to his mother’s house every evening after work, shower, gather some clothes, and proceed to the apartment to retire for the evening. Mrs. Creal paid the rent for the apartment on South Park Street, while Mr. Creal contributed by buying the groceries for himself, Mrs. Creal, and her two children. Mr. and Mrs. Creal split the cost of utilities for the apartment.
When Mrs. Creal and her children moved into an apartment on 1st Street in Troy in March 2000, Mr. Creal brought his clothes, some furniture, pictures, photo albums, and other memorabilia to the new apartment. Mr. and Mrs. Creal also purchased a bedroom set for the apartment. When they moved into the apartment, Mr. Creal stopped going to his mother’s house in St. Joseph to shower and change after work, and instead came directly back to Troy to spend the night. Also at that time, Mr. and Mrs. Creal opened a joint checking account into which Mr. Creal began depositing his paychecks to help pay the household bills. Mr. and Mrs. Creal were married in July 2000.
In November 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Creal moved into a house on Streeter Creek Road in Troy. Mr. Creal died approximately two weeks later. His death certificate lists Kansas as his residence.
From the time Mr. and Mrs. Creal first met until Mr. Creal’s death in December 2000, Mr. Creal retained certain connections with the State of Missouri. In November 1999, he applied for a Missouri title and license for his Chevrolet van using his mother’s St. Joseph address. In December 1999, he applied for
