FILED DEC 0 9 2016 OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK JOAN Circuit Court of St. Louis County emu" mm 105 South Central Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105 JOAN M. GILMER GARY J. KRAUTMANN CIRCUIT CLERK LEGAL COUNSEL December 9, 2016 RE: Lisa A. Puzder v. Andrew F. Puzder, Case 21482862 Lisa A. Puzder v. Andrew F. Puzder, Case 21546046, ~01, ~02 Lisa Henning v. Andrew Puzder, Case 21577367 To whom it may concern: You have requested copies of the above~referenced case files. Case number 21482862 cannot be located at this time, and a search for it con?nues. That said case numbers 21482862 and 21546046 are both dissolution of marriage cases filed in the 1980?s and prior to August 28, 2009. As such, these files are musubject- to-thepreWsions-of which files not available to the public except for their ?interlocutory of final judgment or any modification thereo . Copies of the judgments in case number 21546046, and its -01, ~02 subparts are attached hereto. Pursuant to ?452.430 and ?509.520 full Social Security Numbers, and full financial account numbers, and the birth dates of children, have been redacted from these judgments. . Finally, pursuant to Judge Beach's Order to Seal (copy attached) the attached copy of case number 21577367, does not include the exhibits to the Affidavit of Andrew F. Puzderfiled on July 21, 1988. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI LE LISA HENNING, DEC 0 9 2016 . Plaintiff, JOAN M. GILMEB Cause No. 21577357 CIRCUIT CLERK. ST. LOUIS GOUNW Vs. Division No. 6 ANDREW PUZDER, Defendant. ORDER TO SEAL Comes now the Court on its own motion and pursuant to ?452.430 In attempting to satisfy requests for access to the contents of this civil ?le, the Circuit Clerk realized that the exhibits to the A?idavit of Andrew F. Puzder ?led on July 21, 1988, are c0pies from case no. 21546046, styled Lisa Puzder vs. Andrew F. Puzder, which is a dissolution of marriage ?led prior to August 28, 2009. As such, case no. 21546046, and its contents, are Subject to the pmViSi'U?S of ?452'430 . . .. .-. . . . .. Accordingly, it is the order of the Court that, pursuant to ?452.430 the exhibits to the A?idavit of Andrew F. Puzder are sealed, and shall not be included in thecopies of this case ?le provided to the public. SO ORDERED: Douglas R. Beach, Judge. was 7P Viva ?0 Date: !q II He 73%? 5? ?171{?55 ?3 swam-m" J. KRAUS #37558 . Pl ?3 St. Louis, MS 63105 111?561! dram D?ft?a Atty. Adar-n WIS 8: GRANT . $10.00 Law Library Fee Paid By II 7 . 5 87.00 De ?tad By pplied to Costa s_ 37- 5 W337 (humor Action .. - .. -- 2 5-3111 as: -1..- .o ah bh J-rasbkl -?nu ?9 .- him?La PAH gait?: JAN 0 3 7989 Cite RY Hit clerk ?ameFr? .5, Report: CZR0026 215T JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Date: 09-Dec-2016 ST LOUIS COUNTY Time: . CIRCUIT COURT DOCKET SHEET Page: 1 21577367 LISA HENNING ANDREW PUZDER Security Level: 1 Public Case Type: CC Pers Injury-Other I I Case Filing Date: 20?May?1988 Status: Uncontested Disposition: Uncontested Disposition Date: 16-Nov-1988 Release/Status Plaintiff LISA HENNING (621759199) Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHANIE KRAUS MORRISON (37558) Defendant ANDREW PUZDER (622403309) ?ing Date Description 20-May-1988 Document Filed DATE CASE FILED. ASSIGNED TO DIVISION 14. COURT AUTOMATED SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED ON 09/03/96. FOR MINUTES PRIOR TO THAT DATE SEE CASE FILE. 16-Nov-1988 Uncontested WITHOUT TRIAL- FF ?Fi? HEHNJ I3. 1-1 5} CIIN I Fi?; LEN F.. PUZDER. LISA A FF .NG HFFNIF. HT (Mini-1:. ammua mu waxaa mu m: ?310? RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS . CASHIER w. . . .. 2'1: '1 2" 2" 3.. DATE PLEASE REMFT Pmm? DEDUCTIONS NET COSTS DEPOSITS AMOUNT REFUNDED T0 TOTAL COSTS ACCRUED AGAINST F: IF PLEASE RIMIT 795. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT County of St. Louis, Missouri Cg? - I . li/l?i/rw?; 19 vs. at "a w. Number Team ,1 Cm '5 ills?!? (ygf??at? Mai?L ??1444? Cj Wl? ?u?w?m ?3&4 MW Mtw?maa.? Attorney Phone . Attorney Phone Form No. 13 I I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI let JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DATE ?lib/QR, d) PLAINTIFF VS CASE NUMBER 5'4? 3 8?5 WM DEFENDANT TWDIVISION MAM: {6r FILED DN. Nov 161988 14 TOBIAS cmcunr CLERK. ST. LOUIS coumv Mamas 8 Gem} 6, ?ing. orney I Bar No. Address SO ORDERED Phone No. orney a: 4 A: BarNo. Address Judge/Division Phone No. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, Plaintiff, - Cause No. 577367 TeamA VS. ANDREW F. PUZDER, Defendant. DN. MN 16\988 13' .1121 5112 BE 9E PM NW Evan's 23ngqu ,lggm?mw, ST. LOUIS 00? Prior to March 19, 1987, Plaintiff and Defendant were married to one another. On that date, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri entered a decree of dissolution of marriage, dissolving the marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant. In anticipation of the dissolution action, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into and executed an Marital Settlement and Separation Agreement (hereinafter "Settlement Agreement," a true and complete copy of which is attached as _?Exhibit 1" to the "Affidavit 5f Andrew? . PuZder" filed in support of Defendant's Metion), pursuant to which they, inter alia, made provisions for the division of their marital property and non-marital property, for Plaintiff's maintenance, and for child support? By the terms of that Settlement Agreement Plaintiff received, among other things, the following: A cash payment of $20,000.00; Maintenance of $12,000.00 per year for three (3) years: Child support of $17,520.00 per year: Over $6,000.00 from Defendant's profit-sharing plan; and -Various personal preperty including an automobile, - furniture, jewelry, art work, and housewares. ?In the dissolution action Plaintiff was represented by the lawfirm of Rothman, Sokol Adler. Defendant was represented by the lawfirm of Raskas, Ruthmeyer, Pomerantz Wynne. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement executed by Plaintiff and Defendant contains the following provision: "Each of the PARTIES hereby affirms that they are entering into this Agreement freely and voluntarily; that they have ascertained and weighed all of the facts and circumstances likely to influence his or her judgment.herein; that they have given due consideration to such provisions and questions; that they have sought independent advice and counsel in regard to all details and particulars of the Agreement and the underlying facts; and that they clearly understand and assent to all the provisions hereof." (Settlement Agreement, p.18, 1137) . In her Petition herein, Plaintiff now alleges that on May 22, 1986, Defendant assaulted and battered her. Defendant has filed'his Motion for Summary Judgment in his favor on Plaintiff's Petition_herein for the reason that all disputes between, Plaintiff and Defendant were fully compromised and settled in the Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached to Defendant's Affidavit in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment as "Exhibit 1" and is further incarporated herein by this reference thereto as if fully set forth.herein. The Settlement Agreement was executed after negotiations between the parties and contained, inter alia, a release of Defendant from all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in the within action. Shortly before filing her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant under Missouri?s Adult Abuse Act, which claim involved the same purported assault and battery of May 22, 1986, which is the basis for Plaintiff's Petition herein. (A.copy of Plaintiff?s initial claim is attached to the Affidavit of Andrew F. Puzder as "Exhibit (hereinafter "Puzder Affidavit"). Defendant vigorously opposed Plaintiff's claim, and the matter was settled by the Parties agreeing to'a Consent Order which permitted Defendant to return to the family home and reside there with certain limitations on the Conduct of both parties. (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 3). The Consent Order entered with respect to Plaintiff's Adult Abuse .action was amended by a further Consent Order which was executed at the same time as the Settlement Agreement and is also attached to the Decree and the Settlement Agreement. 13: her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, Plaintiff again alluded to the purported assault and battery of May 22, 1986, alleging that Defendant had "behaved in such a way that [Plaintiff could] not reasonably be expected to live with him." Defendant denied this allegation in his answer and Crossbill. 'The purported assault and battery ?Plaintiff alleges in her Petition was clearly discussed and within the contemplation of the Parties prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. For example, in a letter from Plaintiff's former counsel (Daniel R. Sokol) to Plaintiff's counsel dated October 22, 1986, Plaintiff's former counsel refers to an "injury suffered during the incident on May 22, 1986." (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 6, Defendant?s counsel responded by denying that any supposed injury "would be due to a purported incident which allegedly occurred on May 22, 1986." (Puzder Affidavit,_Exhibit 7, Paragraph 35 on page 17 of the Settlement Agreement states, in. part, as follows: "In consideration of. the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, each PARTY hereto declares that, at such time as the Decree becomes final, this Agreement shall be a-full, complete and final settlement of the claims and rights of every character whatsoever which either PARTY may now have or hereafter might otherwise have against the other (or in and to any property of the other) arising out of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or existing on or prior to the date the Decree becomes final ll (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 1). Because of Plaintiff's. allegations concerning the purported incident of May 22, 1986 throughout the Dissolution proceeding and negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant would not have signed the Settlement Agreement without the aforesaid Release of all "claims and rights of every character whatsoever . . . arising out of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or existing on or prior to the date the Decree becomes final . . (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 1, Settlement Agreement, p.17, 1135). At all times since March 19, 1987, the Settlement Agreement has remained in full force and effect, and Plaintiff has retained the benefits thereof. I ARGUMENT Supreme Court Rule 74.04 provides that a defendant may, at any time, move for a summary judgment in his favor if he can show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that-he is-entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Assuming, for purposes of this Motion for Summary Judgment only, that all of the averments contained in Plaintiff?s Petition are true (which Defendant expressly denies), then there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law on Plaintiff's Petition herein. It is well settled law in Missouri that a release executed as a compromise and settlement of a disputed claim is a bar to recovery and may be raised in a motion for summary judgment. Farmer 2. Arnold, 371 265 (Mo. 1963). As noted above, the Settlement Agreement contains the broadest of general release language, releasing Defendant as follows: "In consideration ?of the premises and the mutual covanants and agreements contained herein, each PARTY hereto declares that, at such time as the Decree becomes final, this Agreement shall be a full, complete and final settlement of the claims and rights of every character whatsoever which either PARTY may now have or hereafter - might otherwise have against the other (or in and to any preperty of the other) arising out of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or existing on or prior to the date the Decree becomes final . . . (Settlement Agreement, p.17, paragraph 35). It is also well settled law in Missouri that a general release unrestricted to a particular demand or claim covers all claims. Qill_yL om 451 365, 374 (Mo. ct. App. 1970) release unrestricted to a particular demand ordinarily covers all claims"); Daniels y, lip-mop Elumbing a Heating, 150., 409 741, 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966) release not restricted to a particular demand or claim ordinarily covers all claims then due"). Under the terms of the release contained in the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff released Defendant from "the claims and rights of every character whatsoever which either PARTY may now have or hereafter might otherwise have against the other . . . arising put of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or existing on or prior to" March 19, 1987. (Emphasis supplied). Plainly, this release language is :not. restricted 'to any particular claim and it is broad enough to encompass the claims now being asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Accordingly, under the rule enunciated in Qiil y, Poindexter Tiie Company and Qanieisiyi41i941g9_ Piumhing Heating, inc., supra, the general release contained in the Settlement Agreement bars Plaintiff's present cause of action. However, as if that were not enough, Plaintiff's actual knowledge, at the time she executed the Settlement Agreement containing the subject release, of the existence of the claims now being asserted by her drives the final nail into the coffin burying her claims. As will be demonstrated hereinbelow, Plaintiff clearly had knowledge of and was considering, prior to her execution of the Settlement.Agreement, the claims which she has now brought in the instant suit. Under the principle that a general release discharges all claims not otherwise excepted therefrom, it is not controlling that Plaintiff knew of the claims now being asserted by her at the time she executed the Settlement Agreement. However, her knowledge of those claims at the time of said signing is all the more reason why the aforesaid release plainly encompasses those claims and serves to discharge Plaintiff therefrom. Ltd., 185 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1950), the plaintiffs had filed a prior suit, and in settlement thereof, had executed a general release in favor of the! defendants. The record in the second suit reflected that at the time the. plaintiffs executed the release, they at least ?suspected" the existence of the claim which formed the basis of their second suit against the defendants. In the second suit the defendants asserted the general release signed in settlement of the first suit as a bar to plaintiffs? second action and contended that the release entitled the defendants to a judgment as ai'matter of law. The defendants further argued that the general release was all the more binding as a defense to the'plaintiffs' second suit because the plaintiffs had known of the existence of the claims being asserted in the second suit at the time they executed the general release and disposed of the first suit. The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants and held that the general release barred the second suit and constituted a defense to that suit which entitled the defendants to judgment as a matter of law. That same reasoning controls in the case at bar. Not only did the release given by Plaintiff generally release and discharge Defendant from the claims asserted by Plaintiff in the dissolution action, the release discharged Defendant from all claims "of every character . . . arising out of or relating to the marriage . . . or any other matters . . . Moreover, at ?the time 'that Plaintiff executed. the Settlement Agreement and the general release contained therein, she well-knew of the claims now being asserted by her. Plaintiff's knowledge is clearly demonstrated by the following: 1. Plaintiff's filing of an action under Missouri's Adult Abuse Act involving the same purported assault and battery of May 22, 1986 as she alleges in this action (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 2): 7 2.. deposition taken June 17,.20 and 23, 1986 in" connection with her purported Adult Abuse claim in which she described the supposed incident in detail, described her supposed injuries, and identified the doctors she had seen, all as a result of the same event alleged i1: Plaintiff's Petition herein (Deposition of Lisa A. Puzder, Cause No. 21386w0232); and, I 3. CorreSpondence between Plaintiff's former counsel sand Defendant's counsel with respect to settlement of the divorce proceeding which specifically refers to the purported "injury suffered during the incident" alleged in Plaintiff?s Petition herein (Puzder Affidavit, Exhibit 6, As such, Plaintiff submits that it is clear that the general release contained in the Settlement Agreement bars Plaintiff? actions. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. ReSpectfully. submitted, RASKAS, RUTHMEYER, WYNNE, GARAVAGLIA SUSMAN BY: JEE ME F. RASKAS #17410 1010 Market, Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63101?2000 (314) 241-6161 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I614. p$?g copy of the foregoing was hand?delivered, this let day of 1988, to Stephanie Kraus, for Plaintiff. . (51? Jerome . Raskas I DIV. NOV 161988, 14 PATRICIA CIRCUIT CLERK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS- STATE OF MISSOURI LISA HENNING, Plaintiff, Cause No. 577367 v. Team A ANDREW PUZDER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. Defendant physically assaulted plaintiff on May 22, 1986, inflicting serious bodily injuries. Thereafter the parties divorced on March 19, 1987, at which time a separation agreement was executed and a decree was entered. At no time during the. negotiations that culminated in the separation agreement and decree was there any discussion between parties or counsel concerning whether paragraph 35 of the separation agreement released defendant for any liability from this assault on the plaintiff occurring on May 22, 1986. It was plaintiff's clear intent that defendant not be so released. II. ARGUMENT: A. gtatutorily A written separation agreement contains provisions for maintenance of either spouse, disposition of property owned by either of them, and the custody support and visitation of their children. Section 452.325 (Supp. 1984). In the Puzder divorce, the separation agreement was incorporated in the divorce decree. Separation agreements do not traditionally (statutorily) contain provisions concerning intentional torts. ?Further, at no time during the negotiations that culminated in the Puzder separation agreement and decree Was there any discussion between parties and/or counsel concerning the release of defendant for any liability from the assault which occurred on May 22, 1986. B. Abolishment of lnterspgusal Immunity In gownsend v. Townsend, 708 646 (Mo. banc 1986), the Court abolished the common?law doctrine of interspousal immunity. In an action against her husband, appellant sought damages for personal injuries she suffered when he shot her in the back with a shotgun as he attempted to enter her residence. The allegation was made that the shooting was "intentional and malicious in that [d]efendant acted with a purpose to seriously injure or kill the [p]laintiff by means of a deadly weapon." Id; at 646. The Court stated that appellant should not be limited in recovery to damage to her clothing caused by the shotgun blast, but may also be compensated for the damage to her person. Id; at 649. A cause of action lies for personal injuries inflicted by one'spouse against the other during their marriage. Lg; There? fore, plaintiff Lisa Henning has a cause of-action for personal injuries inflicted by defendant against her during their mar? riage. C. Subsequent Tort Actions In S.A.V. v. K.G.V., 651 (Mo.banc. 1986), the Court held that tort claims are not duplicative of property settlements-and judgments obtained in dissolution of marriage proceedings, In an action against her husband, appellant sought damages for contracting herpes praeputialis during their mar~- riage. The allegation was made that the respondent willfully, recklessly, and negligently transmitted the disease to appellant without informing her of his infection. 1d; at 652. Respondent argued that tort claims are duplicative of property settlements and judgment obtained in dissolution of marriage proceedings. The Court, however, stated that "there are distinct differences between the division of marital property between spouses and awards of damages for an injury." lg; at 653. 'If the conduct of the spouses is taken into account in division of marital proper? ty, then the dissolution decree "might be admissible in the subsequent tort action." Lg; Defendant Andrew Puzder, therefore, has not been released of liability for the intentional tort committed against plaintiff during their marriage by the separation agreement and decree of March 19, 1987, for the following reasons: 1) The negotiations surrounding the Puzder separation agreement and decree did not concern the release of defendant for any liability from the assault which occurred on May 22, 1986, and 2) Plain- tiff's tort claim is not duplicative of the parties separation agreement and decree. CONCLUSION: The Court must dismiss defendant's motion for summary judgment, because plaintiff has a cause of action against defen? dant for personal injuries committed against her during the parties' marriage. Further, defendant was not released from .liability in the parties' separation agreement and decree for personal injuries inflicted upon plaintiff during their marriage, and tort claims are not duplicative of property settlements and judgments obtained in dissolution of marriage proceedings. Respectfully submitted, MARGULIS GRANT, P.C. I uz if BY - ?awsSo. Meramec, Suite 1330 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 721-6677 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A copy of the foregoing hand- delivered this IQ day of November, 1988, to: Mr. Jerome Raskas, Attorney at Law, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1300, St. Loui Missouri 63101. STATE OF MISSOURI ss. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, 'Cause No. 577367 - - Plaintiff, LI, Team A vs. . ANDREW F. PUZDER, {if Defendant. To: Arthur S. Margulis and Stephanie_Kraus Attorneysfor Plaintiff Commerce Bank Building 11 South Meramec, Suite 1330 Clayton, Missouri 63105 Please take notice that Defendant, Andrew F. Puzder,will call up his Motion for Summary Judgment on the 16th of November, 1988, at 9:00 a.m. in Division 14 in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, or as soon thereafter as agreed upon by the parties. .MASKAS, RUTHMEYER, POMERANTZ, GARAVAGLIA SUSMAN BY: Jer F. Raskas #17410 101 Market Street, Suite 1300 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314) 241~6161 Attorneys for Defendant A copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid this Qz??h day of October, 1988, to: Mr. Arthur S. Margulis and Ms. Stephanie J. Kraus, Commerce Bank Building, 11 South Meramec, Suite 1330, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Attorney for Plaintiff. {m was ?hit a' In?; IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI let JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 1'51; A. Henm?m DATE quvsr . PLAINTIFF . VS - CASE NUMBER 57736;"? '23 I .-. r; Aha, F. 1% er DEFENDANT 1.7211: 111:: 1 50m now Dela-am aw) - 6r)? ?rthh?j 1h Chancc?hm AIS way Summary Jujemfv. 39a 7 A so ORDERED 24/ Address Phone No. Attorney Bar No. Address udge/ Division Phone No. STATE OF MISSOURI as. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS A) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, I. .. Plaintiff, Cause No. Team A i 2? 11? ANDREW F. PUZDER, . .. Defendant. v; if? users y, .u The above?entitled cause haying come before ?the Court 'on Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, with both parties appearing by and through their attorneys; and This Court, having reviewed the Affidavits submitted by both parties and the Pleading, finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Defendant is entitled to a judgment in his 'favor as a matter of law because on or about March 19, 1987, Plaintiff executed a Settlement Agreement which contained a General Release by virtue of which Plaintiff has fully released'and discharged Defendant from each and every claim now being asserted by Plaintiff in her Petition. It is on this day of - 1988, ordered, adjudged and decreed that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant, Andrew F. Puzder, and against the Plaintiff, Lisa A. Henning, with court costs to be taxed against Plaintiff. SO ORDERED Judge of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri .- g; IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI let JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WA . 7 ?7-1 . PLAINTIFF 5;!7 3 4 7 vs! CASE NUMBER . ID ?Mg/0112;. DEFENDANT a? u. '88 JUL 29 410?? Cw?kNAddress SO ORDERED Phone No. Attorney Bar No. Address Judge/Division Phone No. COURT or THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS . STATE OF MISSOURI LISA HENNING, . . Plaintiff, Cause No. 577383 v. Team A . .., ANDREW PUZDER, r, lg.? . -- . DefendantComes now affiant, Lisa Henning, and after being duryng?ii} 1. Defendant Andrew Puzder is my former husband and on May upon her oath states as follows: will. 22, 1986, he physically assaulted me, inflicting serious and permanent personal injuries. Following this incident I filed a motion under the Adult Abuse Statute and also filed a petition for a protective order, as set out in Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. The marriage was thereafter dissolved in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county on March 19, 1987. A decree of dis- solution was entered and attached thereto is a marital settlement and separation agreement. 3. Affiant Lisa Henning further states that at no_time during the negotiations or discussions that culminated in the dissolution agreement was there any reference made by any party or counsel to the physical abuse inflicted upon plaintiff on May 22, 1986, or any other physical abuse inflicting upon plaintiff during the course of the marriage. Affiant states that said matters were not discussed between her and her attorney Daniel Sokol at the time that said separation agreenent and decree were entered, nor was she participant in any such discussions between parties or counsel concerning said subject, nor is she aware that any ever occurred. 4. Affiant further states that her former attorney, Daniel Sokol, has knowledge of and can provide information concerning m' - LISA HENNING these matters. STATE OF MISSOURI SS. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS On this 29th day of July, 1988, before me personally ap- peared LISA HENNING, and after being duly sworn upon her oath did state that the facts stated in the above and foregoing Affidavit are true and correct according to her best knowledge, i ormation and belief. commission expires: .11 . /5 J. KRAUS, 11 South Meramec, Suite 1330 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 721-6677 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF A copy of the foregoing mailed this 29th da of July, 1988, to: Jerome F. as, - Defendant, 10 0 1300, St. Lo I Affh?r S. Marguf?s OFFICES WYNNE, SUSMAN SUITE I300 I010 MARKET STREET JEROME r. SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI TELEPHONE BERNARD A. RUTHMEYER (3I4) 24l-6l6l SANFORD E. POMERANTZ ROBERT J. WYNNE: JOHN c. GARAVAGLIA BERNARD SUSMAN RECEIVE ROBERT M. SUSMAN July 20 MARK o. SADOW . ST A, PHILLIP A. FRANKLIN I SHELDON o. GRAND CARL M. WARD ROBERT A. STRAUSS . 88 UM ?25 '9 h. Ms. Stephanie J. Kraus Attorney at Law BKMW c/o Margulis Grant, P.C. Suite 1330, Commerce Bank Bldg. 11 S. Meramec St. Louis, MO 63105 RE: Henning ~vs~ Puzder Cause No. 577367 Dear Ms. Kraus: Pursuant to your letter of July 19, 1988, I enclose herewith a copy of the Affidavit you requested. Very truly youre, (7974431 Jerome F. Raskas Encloeg?? 'cc: Circuit Court ?County of St. Louis IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, Plaintiff, Cause No. 577367 vs. Team A ANDREW F. PUZDER, Defendant. AFFIDAVIT 0F ANDREW F. PUZDER . COMES NOW Affiant, Andrew F. Puzder, being duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states that he is the Defendant in the abovencaptioned cause, and makes this Affidavit in Support of his. Motion for Summary Judgment. The following facts are relevant to the issues involved in the above?captioned cause. 1. Plaintiff in. the above?captioned cause is Affiant's former wife. . 2. Plaintiff's Petition lin this? matter alleges ;a purported .assault and battery which allegedly occurred on May 22, 1986. 3. Plaintiff and Affiant were divorced on March 19, 1987. A copy of the Decree of Dissolution with all attachments (hereinafter "Decree") is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Attached ix) the Decree is a ?Marital Settlement and Separation Agreement" dated. March 19, 1987 (hereinafter "Settlement Agreement"). The Decree Specifically incorporates the Settlement Agreement and makes it a part of the Decree. 4-. .In the Dissolutiion proceeding, Plaintiff was- represented by the firm of Rothman, Sokol Adler, and Affiant was represented in the Dissolution proceeding by the law firm of Raskas, Ruthmeyer, Pomerantz Wynne. 5. Shortly before filing her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, Plaintiff filed a claim against Affiant under Missouri's Adult Abuse Act, which claim involved the same purported assault and battery of May 22, 1986 which is the basis for Plaintiff's Petition herein. A cepy of Plaintiff's initial Iclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit 26 Affiant vigorously 'opposed Plaintiff's clainn and t?ua matter was settled by the Parties agreeing to a Cbnsent Order which permitted Affiant to return to the family home and reside there with certain limitations on the conduct of both partieso The Consent Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6. The Consent Order entered with reSpect to -aPlaintiffls Adult Abuse action was amended by a further Consent. Order which was executed at the same time as the Settlement Agreement and is also attached to the Decree and the Settlement Agreement. 7. In her Petition ?for Dissolution of Marriage, Plaintiff again alluded to the purported assault and battery of May 22, 1986, alleging that Affiant had "behaved in such a way that [Plaintiff could] not reasonably be expected to live with him." Affiant denied such allegation in his Answer and Crossbill. Plaintiff's Petition and Affiant's Answer and Crossbill are attached hereto as Exhibits 4 and 5. The purported assault and battery Plaintiff alleges in her Petition was clearly discussed and within the contemplation of the Parties prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. For example, in a letter from Plaintiff's former counsel (Daniel R. Sokol) to Affiant?s counsel dated October 22, 1986, Plaintiff's former counsel refers to an "injury suffered during the incident on May 22, 1986." (Exhibit 6 hereto, Affiant's counsel responded by denying that any supposed injury "would be due to a purported incident which allegedly occurred on May 22, 1986." (Exhibit 7 hereto, 9. Paragraph 35 on page 17? of the Settlement Agreement states, in part, as follows: "ln consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, each PARTY hereto declares that, at such time as the Decree. becomes final, this Agreement shall be a full, complete and final settlement of the claims and rights of every character whatsoever which . either PARTY may? now? A-?ha-ve-?u-or- hereafter ?might otherwise have against the other (or in and to any property of' the other) arising out of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or existing on or prior to the date the Decree becomes final . . . 10. Because of Plaintiff's allegations concerning the purported incident of May 22, 1986 throughout the Dissolution proceeding and negotiation of the Settlement?Agreement, Affiant would not have signed the Settlement Agreement had it not contained the aforesaid Release of all "claims and rights of every character whatsoever . . . arising out .of or relating to the marriage of the PARTIES or any other matter occurring or ~existing ~on- or prior 'to the date the IDecree becomes final . . (Settlement Agreement, p.17, 11. At all times since March 19, 1987, the Settlement 'Agreement has remained in full force and effect, and Plaintiff has retained the benefits thereof. The foregoing is true to the best of Affiant's knowledge, information, and belief . I REW . PUZDER Subscribed and sworn to before this g?gf?v day of June, 1983. ?ax/29M; n. Nota?? Public My Commission Expire A. NOTARY STATE OF wuefount MY 7 63 ST.LCUH3CUUNTY l- tun-vux IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY MISSOURI let JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (are A Hem-1w. I DATE Jul PLAINTIFF (1:93. VS NUAXBER DEFENDANT . . . 60 mg; A ow 3 7415' A a ??10 it: "0 5L0 DIVA 095 Th) 0hr? 0 c- art?? BV/oy Attorney Bar No. /o 4M) . Address so ORDERED QM, . 6 Way 14/6 Phone No. Attorney Bar No. Address Judge! Division Phone No. STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, Plaintiff, Cause No. 577365 Team A ANDREW F. PUZDER, Defendant. NOTICE OE HEARINQ YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE that counsel for D?fenda will'? call up for Hearing its Motion for Summary Judgment, in the above cause, in Division No. of the Circuit Court of the County of .St. Louis, on .Ai?usi 1988, at @500 or as nun-n..? soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. RASKAS, RUTHMEYER, POMERANTZ, WYNNE, GARAVAGLIA SUSMAN BY: Jerome F.?Raskas #17410 1010 Market, Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63101-2000 (314) 241?6161 Attorneys for Defendant A copy of the foregoing, mailed postage prepaid, this day of July, 1988, to: Ms. Stephanie Strauss, Attorney for Plaintiff, Commerce Bank Bldg., 11 S. Meramec, Suite 1330, St. Louis, MO 63105. M?r Jerome . kas STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI LISA A. HENNING, Plaintiff, Cause No. 577367 Team A ANDREW F. PUZDER, Defendant. OTIO F0 JU - Comes now Defendant Andrew F. Puzder, and pursuant to upreme? Court Rule 74.04 moves the Court to enter Summary_Judgment in his favor with respect_to Plaintiff's Petition herein, and as grounds and reasons therefore, states as follows: 1. On or about March 19, 1987, Plaintiff executed a Settlement Agreement which contained a General Release by virtue of which.P1aintiff has fully released and discharged Defendant from each and every claim now being asserted by her in her Petition herein. 2. A review of the pleadings, and the Affidavit of Andrew F. Puzder, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference thereto as if fully set forth herein, shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact relative to the claims asserted by Plaintiff in her Petition herein, and that Defendant Andrew F. Puzder is entitled to a judgment in his favor on Plaintiff's Petition herein as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Defendant Andrew F. Puzder prays this Court to enter Judgment in his faVor on Plaintiff?s Petition herein. RASKAS, RUTHMEYER, POMERANTZ, WYNNE, GARAVAGLIA SUSMAN BY 3 Cg Jenpme F. Raskas #17410 1010 Market, Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63101?2000 241*6161 Attorneys for Defendant CERT FICA A copy of the foregoing was hand delivered, this June, 1988, to: Ms. Stephanie Strauss, Commerce Bank Bldg., 11 S. Meramec, 63105. day of Attorney for Plaintiff, Suite 1330, St. Louis, MO 93,, {73% Jero F. Raskas Circuit Court of St. Louis County State of Missouri fin-'vs. THE STATE OF TO: You are hereby summoned to appear before the above-named court and to file your pleading to the petition, copy of which is attached hereto, and to serve a copy of your pleading upon ii?iif-tUS attorney for whose address is is. S?iiTi?i EUITE iEBihS?f Hi3.) eBEi?Ee all within 30 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the petition. WITNESS. 'Patricia Tobias, Clerk of said Court with the seal thereof here- unto affixed at Clayton. Missouri, this ?24 day- of . Page?; 19 5'8 -. Patricia Tobias Circuit Cler' - Deputy Clerk 0021?112 5/86 I County VS. Fl! 1? h! so: 8 'i??f?ueeHIMetgui?UE?uE ST ease: f9? MARGU GRANT, P.C. Jy??wneg?a?g?aw ARTHUR S. I SUITE I330 WILLIAM P. GRANT COMMERCE BANK BUILDING II SOUTH MERAM EC RICHARD J. ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI 63l05 (m4I72h6677 FLORIDA BAR ILLINOIS EAR may 25 1 9 88 St. Louis Sheriff, 11 North 11th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Re: Henning v. Puzder St. Louis County Circuit Court No. 577367 Dear Sir: Would you please serve the enclosed Summons and Petition for Damages on defendant Andrew Puzder at 911 Washington, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. Enclosed is our check in the amount of $5,00 for this service. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Stephanie J. Kraus Enc. GORDON D. SCHWEITZER SHERIFF CITY OF ST. LOUIS CIVIL COURTS BUILDING IZTHANDCHESTNUTSTREETS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 622-3664 day of Executed this writ in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, this I 19 by delivering copy-of the writ and petition . defendant herein. GORDON D. SC WEITZER . Sheriff as furnished by the Clerk to? - I By Want)! 5-147 Circuit Court of St. I Lou-Is County State of Missouri i tats? vs. .- eumuwaumw . 5 Di?- SUMMONS THE STATEOF MISSOURI TO: 1.: You are hereby summoned to appear before the above-named court and to file your pleading to the petition, copy of which is attached hereto, and to serve a copy of your pleading upon A STWNE attorney for whose address is WW WE: SUITE-Z ims? m. ?ElG?fe all within 30 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default wili be taken against you for the relief demanded in the petition. 5 WITNESS, Patricia Tobias, Clerk .ofsaid Court with the seal thereof here- unto affixed at Clayton, Missouri, this :34 day of . 19 33: Patricia Tobias Circuit Clerk i . i. 'l it. - 3?11:- v. a . .cnlo?u 4 Deputy: Clerk 5/86 ST LEWIS Sheriff of County No. Div. SUMMON V5. gram-Wm- 3.) 9?11 $7 2?50;- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT County of St. Louis, Missouri LISA HENNING May 20 88 ,19 tawusm 5; ?45f." vs. Nunmer Teanl ANDREW PUZDER .9 3.75; Please serve defendant Andrew Puzder 35: Stolar Partner~ ship, 911 Washington Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. WM QTEPHANIE J. KRAUS #37558 11 South Meramec, Suite 1330 vSt,vLouis,LMissourir 63105 721-6677' -ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Attorney Phone Judge Attorney Phone N0. 13 1' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS was up STATE OF MISSOURI 55? LISA HENNING, .m . Plalntiff? . :Inmm Hum {121 Cause v. Team/Divis ANDREW PUZDER, '880 HWY 20 P1 11 Defendant. mm: 1: mun-m PETITION DAMAGES Comes now Plaintiff Lisa Henning and for her Petif'? for Damages against Defendant Andrew Puzder states: . 1. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant was a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri. 2. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff's cause of action accrued in St. Louis County, Missouri. 3. On or about May 22,l?86, Defendant assaulted and battered Plaintiff by striking her Violently about the face, chest, back, shoulders and neck, without provocation or cause;? 4. The actions of Defendant, as aforesaid, were reckless,- malicious and in wanton disregard for Plaintiff's safety, en? titling Plaintiff to punitive damages from Defendant. 5. As a direct result of the aforesaid acts of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries, to?wit: a. Bruises and contusions to the chest, back, shoulders and neck; b. All of the muscles, bones, ligaments and soft tissue of the face, chest, back, shoulders, and neck were violently wrenched, strained, swollen, contused and Otherwise injured; c. Two ruptured discs and two bulging discs; d. All of Plaintiff's injuries_are painful, progressive and permanent. 6. Defendant proceeded to confirm his malicious and wanton intentions towards Plaintiff by applying vituperative and insult~ ing language to her. 7. As a direct result of Defendant's acts, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has sustained medical expenses and shall continue to incur medical expenses, and has sustained and suffered loss of wages and earnings. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars in actual damages, and for punitive damages in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars,- for her costs expended herein, and for such further orders as to the Court may seem meet, just and proper. Respectfully submitted, STEPHANIE J. KRAUS, #37558 11 South Meramec, Suite 1330 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 721-6677 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF MARGULIS GRANT, P.C. ARTHUR s. SUITE l330 WILLIAM P. GRANT commence BANK BUILDING II SOUTH MERAMEC ST. LOUIS. 63 05 (3M) 72I-6677 RICHARD J. T. PATRICK FLORIDA BAR BAR July 19? 1988 .- SI. II ACIRCUII I: Mr. Jerome F. Raskas \?:iww 'Attorney at Law 1010 Market, Suite 1300 St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Henning v. Puzder Cause No. 577367 Dear Mr. Raskas: I have your Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the defendant, however, there was no affidavit attached thereto as purported in your pleading. Would you please forward me a copy of same. Very ruly yours, STEPHANIE J. KRAUS cc: Clerk of the Circuit Court