the request for sanctions as contained in the September 1, 2004, motion was never revisited, nor was that motion the basis for the sanction that was ultimately imposed. When Plaintiff and her lawyer appeared in court for the sanction hearing held on October 26, 2004, they — and the trial court— took up the sanction motion filed October 15, 2004. This is the motion that Defendant’s lawyer swore he never received; an averment that the trial judge found to be true. By proceeding in this fashion, Plaintiff waived or abandoned any claim of entitlement to sanctions under its September 1 motion — the one that Defendant admittedly knew about — and ultimately obtained a judgment via a proceeding held without notice to Defendant. See Harrington v. Harrington, 153 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Mo.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). A judgment entered without notice to an
holding that guardian ad litems extensive advice to plaintiffs attorney and daily involvement in case exceeded formal role of guardian ad litem holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 holding wife abandoned her attempts to seek sanctions against husband and husband was not placed on notice that those issues would be raised again by guardian ad litem holding the district court properly allowed guardian ad litem fees to be taxed as costs holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted