§10.26 No Legitimate Purpose

• Library: Family Law Deskbook (2025 Ed.)

ii. (§10.26) No Legitimate Purpose

As stated in §10.19 above, “stalking” requires that the respondent engage in an unwanted course of conduct that causes alarm to the petitioner. The respondent’s course of conduct is defined as “two or more acts that serve[ ] no legitimate purpose.” Section 455.010(15)(b), RSMo Supp. 2021 (emphasis added). The courts have stated that a legitimate purpose is one that is lawful or allowed. Schwalm v. Schwalm, 217 S.W.3d 335, 337 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). The courts have also indicated that “‘[l]egitimate’ activity is that which is sanctioned by law or custom.” Vinson v. Adams, 188 S.W.3d 461, 464–66 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). A closer review of some cases gives further guidance on the meaning of this phrase.

In C.B. v. Buchheit, 254 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008), the petitioner claimed that during exchanges of her children, her mother-in-law had stalked her by:

· calling her explicit names;

· threatening to have her daughter taken away from her; and

· refusing to leave her property on one occasion until she left with a police escort.

The Eastern District held that the respondent’s actions did not constitute stalking because the repeated trips to the petitioner’s residence were for the legitimate purpose of picking up her granddaughter to facilitate the visitation of the respondent’s son with his daughter. Id. at 212. And yet, the court could not possibly mean that as long as the respondent was engaged in a “legitimate” activity, the respondent could say and do anything, never having to face a stalking allegation.

These concerns were addressed in Patterson v. Pilot, 399 S.W.3d 889, 901 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013): “Although [the respondent] may have been on employer’s property to perform work [on a farm], his actions and conduct towards [the petitioner] went beyond what could be considered legitimate work related to” farming or surveying tasks.

Leaverton v. Lasica, 101 S.W.3d 908 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), is similar to Buchheit, 254 S.W.3d 210. In Leaverton, a landlord obtained a full PO based on approximately six phone calls from a tenant to the landlord and one call to the building owner. During one conversation, the tenant told the owner that he had intended to put the landlord out of business, just as the landlord had done to him. The court of appeals reversed, with instructions to vacate the order, finding that the repeated phone calls to the landlord were to inquire when the tenant must vacate the property and, therefore...