LOGAN YANDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KANAKUK HERITAGE, INC., KANAKUK MINISTRIES, JOE WHITE, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents

1

LOGAN YANDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANAKUK HERITAGE, INC., KANAKUK MINISTRIES, JOE WHITE, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Respondents.

No. SD38892

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHRISTIAN COUNTY Honorable Raymond M. Gross AFFIRMED In December 2010, Logan Yandell ("Plaintiff") settled his claims against Kanakuk Heritage, Inc., Kanakuk Ministries, Joe White, and Ace American Insurance Company (collectively, "Defendants"). Those claims were based upon Defendants having employed a man, Peter Newman ("Newman"), who sexually abused Plaintiff during the time he was a camper at Defendants' Kanakuk Kamp (hereinafter referred to variously as "the camp[,]" "the Kamp[,]" or "Kamp").

In Division

2

On November 17, 2022, approximately 12 years later, Plaintiff sued Defendants for fraud and civil conspiracy based upon a claim that, at the time of the settlement, Defendants had concealed the fact that Defendants knew that Newman had also been sexually abusing other children at the camp. Defendants eventually moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted and entered its judgment that dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit ("the judgment"), finding that: (1) the suit was time-barred, and (2) Plaintiff did not state a claim for actionable fraud or civil conspiracy against Defendants. Plaintiff now appeals that dismissal, presenting nine points relied on. Because the uncontroverted material facts "show ... no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party [(Defendants here)] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[,]" we affirm the judgment. See Rule 74.04(c)(6). 1

Standard of Review "The standard of review on appeal of summary judgment is de novo, and summary judgment will be upheld on appeal if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mo. Prosecuting Att'ys & Cir. Att'ys Ret. Sys. v. Pemiscot Cty., 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. banc 2008). "[T]he trial court's judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by the record." Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP, 436 S.W.3d 556, 561 (Mo. banc 2014). Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control, 552 S.W.3d 114, 116 (Mo. banc 2018).

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025).

3

Analysis Point 3: Plaintiff's Claims are Time-Barred In his third point on appeal, Plaintiff claims the circuit court erred when it found that his claims were time-barred because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding when Plaintiff's claims accrued, in that Plaintiff presented evidence that he did not discover the fraud until December 2021 [as] Plaintiff and his parents did not follow the prosecution of Newman or the media coverage because they trusted Defendant White, were dealing with emotional and psychological consequences of Newman's abuse of Plaintiff, and lived in Nashville, Tennessee[.] We disagree. Generally, section 516.120[ 2 ] sets forth a five-year statute of limitation for certain causes of action. Subsection five of this statute provides that among those claims to which the five-year statute applies is: "An action for relief on the ground of fraud, the cause of action in such case to be deemed not to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party, at any time within ten years, of the facts constituting the fraud." § 516.120(5). Thus, a claim for fraud must be brought within five years from the date the cause of action accrued, i.e., the date the facts constituting the fraud were discovered or, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered, but no longer than ten years after they occurred. Id. Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., 588 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Mo. banc 2019). Plaintiff filed his fraud and civil conspiracy case against Defendants on November 17, 2022. The suit alleged that Defendants committed fraud in that, at the time they settled their case with Plaintiff in 2010, they knew about and actively concealed facts regarding Newman's sexual misconduct with other children. Plaintiff also claims that he did not learn of Defendants' fraud until December 2021. He alleges a civil conspiracy

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2016.

4

based upon the Defendants' alleged agreement to fraudulently conceal Newman's prior inappropriate sexual activity with other children. Our high court has recently reaffirmed the correct means of reviewing a grant of summary judgment as follows: Summary judgment practice in Missouri is governed by Rule 74.04 .... [The movant] "must establish that there is no genuine dispute as to those material facts upon which [she] would have had the burden of persuasion at trial." ITT [Com. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp.], 854 S.W.2d [371,] 381 [(Mo. banc. 1993)] (internal quotation marks omitted). To accomplish this showing, the movant must attach to the motion for summary judgment a statement of uncontroverted material facts that "state[s] with particularity in separately numbered paragraphs each material fact as to which movant claims there is no genuine issue, with specific references to the pleadings, discovery, exhibits or affidavits that demonstrate the lack of a genuine issue as to such facts." Rule 74.04(c)(1). Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Mo. banc 2020).

Green went on to reaffirm that:

[1] Facts come into a summary judgment record only via Rule 74.04(c)'s numbered-paragraphs-and-responses framework. [2] Courts determine and review summary judgment based on that Rule 74.04(c) record, not the whole trial court record. [3] Affidavits, exhibits, discovery, etc. generally play only a secondary role, and then only as cited to support Rule 74.04(c) numbered paragraphs or responses, since parties cannot cite or rely on facts outside the Rule 74.04(c) record....[4] [S]ummary judgment rarely if ever lies, or can withstand appeal, unless it flows as a matter of law from appropriate Rule 74.04(c) numbered paragraphs and responses alone. Id. at 117-18 (quoting Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 508 S.W.3d 159, 161 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016)) (internal quotation omitted). Our review of that record in the instant case reveals that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff, using reasonable diligence, could have discovered by 2011 that Defendants knew of other instances of Newman's inappropriate sexual behavior with

5

other young boys. Accordingly, that is when the five-year statute of limitation began to run. "On September 30, 2009, the front page of the Taney County Times featured an article titled 'Sexual misconduct investigation continues – Parent says Kamp warned about Newman in 2006.'" The article stated, in part: Dallas Resident Amanda Tackett, whose daughter attended the kamp for three years until 2006, said she informed Kanakuk Kamp officials about Newman's odd behavior toward young boys in 2006. Tackett said her daughter told her Newman was touching the boys, petting and rubbing them and taking them into the woods without supervision. Tackett said her daughter said Newman was molesting the boys. That's when she called Kanakuk Kamp officials. The same 2009 Taney County newspaper article also reported that Newman was conducting Bible study classes in his hot tub with underage boys and getting young boys to masturbate during Bible sessions. The article reported that there were at least five additional victims of Newman, who were at that time in their 20s. The article reported that the application for a warrant for Newman's arrest contained other allegations of misconduct involving Newman and young boys over the course of his employment, and Newman was essentially grooming them by spending long periods of time "hanging out" with them and gaining their trust. The article stated that Newman swam nude in the lake with boys, played basketball nude with boys, and streaked nude throughout the camp with the boys. Plaintiff admits that this information was public information, and it would have been possible to learn about the information contained in the Taney County Times article published on September 13, 2009, between that date and 2021. Another article was published on June 10, 2010, in the Springfield News-Leader that described how Newman used his position at the camp to sexually abuse children. On

6

June 16, 2010, the Taney County newspaper published an article titled: "Former camp director receives multiple sentences – Kanakuk Kamp officials knew of inappropriate behavior since 2003." The Springfield News-Leader then published another article in March 2011 3 titled "Lawsuit: Camp Ignored Red Flags[,]" which quotes lawsuits against Defendants that alleged they knew about Newman's proclivities as early as 1999. "On September 14, 2009, the Prosecuting Attorney of Taney County, Missouri, charged Newman with four felony counts involving sexual offenses against minors. The charges included statutory sodomy, sexual misconduct by indecent exposure, and enticement of a child," which incidents were said to have occurred between 2004 and

1. Further, Plaintiff and his parents cooperated "in some limited way" with Newman's

prosecution by providing a victim witness statement and a victim impact statement. Despite that involvement, Plaintiff's parents, Gregory and Christa Yandell, said they "did not follow the press or media coverage of Newman's prosecution and did not read any articles about Newman." On November 17, 2009, Defendant White emailed Plaintiff's parents and told them that additional criminal charges had been filed against Newman. Defendant White also provided Plaintiff's parents with a link to Casenet that would allow them to stay updated about developments in the case against Newman. Defendant White also offered to pay Plaintiff's family's travel to Branson and lodging fees there so they could attend Newman's sentencing hearing in June 2010, but Plaintiff's family declined to attend.

3 While this date is after 2010, the statute of limitation would still have run after the publishing of this article and before Plaintiff filed the instant suit.

7

During the sentencing hearing that Plaintiff and his parents chose not to attend, the prosecutor referenced an agreement signed by Newman in October 2003 "with his employer, the camps at Kanakuk, to basically be on a probationary period because of some questionable conduct with underaged boys." Plaintiff admits that the prosecutor's statement regarding Newman's 2003 probationary agreement was in the public domain as early as 2010, and it "could have been accessible[.]" Based upon these uncontroverted material facts, the circuit court correctly ruled that Plaintif f's fraud claims are time-barred. Any action for fraud accrued no later than 2011 because the use of reasonable diligence would have discovered the facts necessary to support a claim of fraud or civil conspiracy. 4 See Boland, 588 S.W.3d at 882. It is well settled that "[a] plaintiff has a duty to make inquiry to discover facts surrounding the fraud and is deemed to have knowledge of the fraud when he possesses the means of discovery." Dean v. Noble, 477 S.W.3d 197, 204 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015); see also Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 645 S.W.3d 689, 700 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); Hall-Bouldin v. Bouldin, 497 S.W.3d 385, 388-89 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). If the underlying tort claim fails to state a cause of action, a claim of conspiracy based upon that tort-claim cannot stand. Branson's Nantucket, LLC v. Timeshare L. Off., LLC, 708 S.W.3d 496, 512 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025). Accordingly, Plaintiff's alternative civil

4 The fact that Plaintiff was a minor in 2011 does not change this result. While the applicable statute of limitation is tolled until a plaintiff reaches 21 (section 516.170), Plaintiff turned 21 in or around 2016. Thus, the five-year statute of limitation in section 516.120 ran no later than 2021.

8

conspiracy claim fails as well. As our resolution of Point 3 is dispositive of this appeal, we need not reach Plaintiff's other eight points of alleged error. The judgment is affirmed.

DON E. BURRELL, J. – OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – CONCURS