{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"the-medical-protective-company","displayName":"The Medical Protective Company","totalCases":1},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81715:2019-03-12","opinionId":"455d605a-52a3-56ec-b831-96792d91ea42","slug":"karen-peoples-v-the-medical-protective-company-d81715","caseName":"Karen Peoples\nvs.\nThe Medical Protective Company","caseNumber":"WD81715","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-03-12","year":2019,"display_summary":"Karen Peoples sought to enforce a child support lien against personal injury settlement proceeds paid by The Medical Protective Company (MedPro) to her ex-husband. The trial court ruled in favor of Peoples, finding her notice of lien under § 454.519 RSMo was valid, even though the ex-husband's lawsuit had already been filed. On appeal, MedPro argued that Peoples was required to comply with § 454.518 RSMo, which mandates filing notice in the court where the suit is pending. The appellate court affirmed, holding that §§ 454.518 and 454.519 provide alternative, non-conflicting methods for perfecting a child support lien, and compliance with either is sufficient.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karen-peoples-v-the-medical-protective-company-d81715","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":16,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: family-law","text: child support"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"}]}