dissenting.
The principal opinion holds that a party can admit a fact in court and then, in a related proceeding involving the very same fact, deny the previously admitted fact. This result is inconsistent with the plain language and purpose of Rule 90.07(c) and section 525.210. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The rules of discovery are designed to preserve evidence and to prevent unjust surprise during litigation. VBM Corp., Inc. v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Mo.App.1992) (citing Combellick v. Rooks, 401 S.W.2d 460, 464(9, 10) (Mo. banc 1966)). The overarching purpose of discovery rules is to provide a predictable system for establishing the true facts underlying a dispute. Id.
Rule 90.07(c) and section 525.210 are discovery rules applicable to garnishment actions. Rule 90.07(c) provides that the garnishee’s interrogatory answers are “conclusively binding” against the garnish- or if the garnishor does not file exceptions to the answers. Similarly, section 525.210 provides that the garnishee’s answer is “taken to be true and sufficient” if there is no denial by the garnishor. Moore Automotive initiated the garnishment action, availed itself of the applicable procedures, and declined to deny the firm’s assertion that it holds no property owned by Ms. Lewis. The plain language of Rule 90.07(c) and the section 525.210 establish, as a matter of fact, that the firm does not hold any property owned by Ms. Lewis. This is not an ancillary fact. Moore’s Automotive’s admission that the firm holds none of Ms. Lewis’ property wholly elimi*56nates its cause of action against the firm. Permitting Moore Automotive to deny a dispositive fact previously established in another closely related proceeding, which Moore Automotive initiated, wastes limited judicial resources and is inconsistent with the goal of providing a predictable system for establishing the facts underlying a dispute. Moore’s Automotive’s judicial admission should be conclusive.
The principal opinion concludes that Moore’s Automotive’s admission is not conclusively binding because: (1) neither Rule 90.07(c) nor section 525.210 defines the scope of the judicial admission; and, (2) the common law of judicial admission generally holds an admission in one proceeding is not conclusively binding in another. Neither premise is persuasive.
First, the intended scope of the Rule 90.07(c) judicial admission is clear: it is “conclusively binding.” Any doubt as to the intended scope of the admission provided for in Rule 90.07(e) should be resolved by first placing the plain language of the rule in context. As discussed above, Rule 90.07(c) is a discovery rule, the purpose of which is to facilitate the orderly and timely discovery of the facts. In the context of this case, that means Moore Automotive is bound by its admission — in a proceeding Moore Automotive initiated— that the firm held no property belonging to Ms. Lewis or her husband. Facts, once admitted and established pursuant to rule and statute, should not be readily subject to revision.
Second, although a judicial admission generally is not binding in a separate proceeding, that general rule has no application in this case because Rule 90.07(c) provides that Moore Automotive’s admission is “conclusively binding.” The principal opinion cites a number of cases discussing the general rule, none of which involves the effect of a discovery rule or statute in closely related proceedings involving the same underlying facts. Although allegations in a condemnation petition are not binding against the condemnor in a subsequent action for inverse condemnation, Barr v. KAMO Electric Corp., 648 S.W.2d 616, 619 n. 2 (Mo.App.1983), and factual statements in a previous appellate brief are not conclusively binding in a subsequent appeal in another case, Kansas City v. Keene Corp., 855 S.W.2d 360, 373 (Mo. banc 1993); Mitchell Eng’g. Co. v. Summit Realty Co., 647 S.W.2d 130, 140-41 (Mo.App.1982), the fact remains that Rule 90.07(c) provides unequivocally that Moore Automotive’s admissions are “conclusively binding” in its suit against the firm.
I would affirm the judgment.