Receiver Appointment Affirmed For Defendant Accused Of Attorney’s Murder

The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District affirmed the appointment of a receiver to secure pre-judgment the assets of the alleged murderer of an attorney

The current case arises from an earlier personal injury lawsuit brought by Jeffery Harris against David Jungerman in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Harris v. Jungerman, No. 1416-CV22910. Thomas Pickert and his law firm represented Harris in that case. In the Harris lawsuit, Harris alleged that Jungerman had unjustifiably shot Harris when Jungerman discovered Harris at a warehouse building owned by Jungerman in the early morning hours of September 25, 2012. Among other injuries, Harris’ right leg was amputated below the knee as a result of the shooting.

A jury awarded Harris $750,000 in compensatory damages for battery, and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. The circuit court entered judgment on the jury verdict on August 3, 2017. David Jungerman did not post an appeal bond to secure payment of the Harris judgment. Accordingly, while the case was pending on appeal, Thomas Pickert began proceedings against Jungerman to execute on the Harris judgment. Jungerman was served with documents related to those execution efforts on October 24, 2017.

On October 25, 2017, after walking his children to school, Thomas Pickert was shot and killed in front of his home. David Jungerman has been charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action for causing Thomas Pickert’s death. State v. Jungerman, No. 1816-CR01619-01 (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct.). The criminal case is currently pending.

The Harris judgment has been affirmed.

The petition alleges that, shortly after the jury’s verdict in the Harris case was announced, David Jungerman approached Thomas Pickert in a threatening manner in the courtroom, and told him that “[n]one of this matters. I have 186 guns. I did it once before. I will do it again. You can’t touch me.” The petition alleges that Jungerman attempted to coerce and intimidate Thomas Pickert and his firm to dissuade them from attempting to collect on the Harris judgment. The petition alleges that Jungerman’s threats to Thomas Pickert were consistent with a long history of violent and threatening actions. The petition also alleges that, subsequent to Thomas Pickert’s murder, Jungerman “admitted to being responsible for the fatal shot ‘because a lawyer stole his money.’”

The petition contains detailed allegations concerning property transfers by Jungerman, which the petition alleges were designed to frustrate his creditors. Thus, the petition alleges that, shortly after entry of the Harris judgment on August 3, 2017, Jungerman “began, or continued, a scheme to fraudulently transfer assets to hinder, delay, and defraud” present and/or future creditors…

The petition prays that the circuit court void and set aside all of Jungerman’s fraudulent transfers. 

The circuit court

The day after the hearing, Riegel filed a proposed order appointing a receiver. On the same day, Jungerman filed an objection to the appointment of a receiver.

On August 29, 2018, the circuit court entered an order appointing a receiver “to take charge over all of the Defendants’ property and assets.”

As to the argument that a judgment was necessary

Jungerman’s argument relies on a truncated – and misleading – quotation of the relevant statutory provisions. Jungerman’s brief asserts that the Fraudulent Transfer Act defines a “claim” as a “right to payment . . .,” and continues by arguing that “the plaintiff must [therefore] prevail on its underlying claim” in order to establish a sufficient “right to payment.” What Jungerman’s brief conceals by an ellipsis, however, is that the Act defines a “claim” to include

a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.

§ 428.009(3) (emphasis added). The emphasized language – wholly omitted from Jungerman’s opening and reply briefs – on its face establishes the fallacy of Jungerman’s argument: the statute plainly defines individuals as “creditors” even if their claims against a debtor have not been reduced to judgment, and even if those claims are unliquidated, contingent, and disputed. The fact that Riegel’s wrongful death claim has not been litigated to final judgment does not prevent her from being a “creditor” possessing a “claim” within the meaning of the Fraudulent Transfer Act.

Affirmed on appeal

We recognize that the appointment of a receiver over a civil defendant’s property, during the pendency of litigation, is an extraordinary remedy which should be employed only in highly unusual and compelling circumstances. The circuit court justifiably concluded that this case presents such extraordinary circumstances. The arguments raised by Jungerman on appeal fail to establish any abuse of discretion or error of law by the circuit court.

The defendant made his fortune selling safe products for babies as told by the Babybargains  website

David Jungerman is listed as the president of Baby-Tenda Corp, a Kansas City-based company that makes feeding tables under the name Babee Tenda. We’ve written about Baby Tenda since the 1990’s, criticizing the company’s direct sales tactics  and misleading marketing claims.

In 2007, a court found Jungerman’s company guilty of “”falsely and fraudulently mailed sales material indicating the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) or the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) sponsored seminars at which Defendant’s products were sold.” According to 2007 court records, Jungerman is the “sole shareholder, officer and director for over thirty-five years, and is still the day-to-day manager of the (Baby Tenda) company.”

41 KSHB has a story on settlement negotiations in the wrongful death case. 

KCTV 5 reports that the criminal case is scheduled in January 2020. The defendant is seeking a change of venue.  (Mike Frisch)