Jeffrey v. Cathers

104 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. App. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D entered into a contract to perform demolition and hauling services on P's real property. Based on a dispute, P refused to pay D. D then filed a mechanic's lien against P's property. P then sued D for fraudulent misrepresentation (Counts I and II, abuse of process (Counts III and IV) and slander of title (V and VI) with requests for punitive damages on each count. P alleged D altered the contract to add notice of lien language and then recorded the mechanic's lien pursuant to the altered contract. D filed a motion to dismiss P's second amended petition. D alleged Counts I and II failed to state a cause of action because (a) the actions complained of were the alleged actions of E.C.E., Inc., (b) the actions complained of are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata in that they were litigated, and a directed verdict was sustained in favor of E.C.E., Inc., in another proceeding, and (c) the trial court previously dismissed the claim in response to D's motion to dismiss P's first amended petition. Counts III and IV failed to state a cause of action because (a) the actions complained of were the alleged actions of E.C.E., Inc., (b) the actions complained of are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata in that they were litigated, and a directed verdict was sustained in favor of E.C.E., Inc., in another proceeding, and (c) there was no allegation that the suit was filed other than for the purpose of collecting the debt due. D alleged Counts V and VI failed to state a cause of action because (a) the actions complained of were the alleged actions of E.C.E., Inc., (b) a mechanic's lien claim is absolutely privileged so long as suit to enforce the lien is timely filed, (c) P failed to join an indispensable party in that the real estate was owned by a married couple as tenants by the entirety and as such both must be made parties for an alleged injury to their property, and (d) the actions complained of are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata in that they were litigated, and a directed verdict was sustained in favor of E.C.E., Inc., in another proceeding. In the prior case, E.C.E., Inc., filed a petition to enforce a mechanic's lien, breach of contract, and quantum meruit against P and his wife. The court found in favor of P and his wife on E.C.E., Inc.'s, counts for mechanic's lien and breach of contract and the trial court dismissed E.C.E., Inc.'s, claim for quantum meruit. P also filed a counterclaim against E.C.E., Inc. The trial court granted directed verdicts in favor of E.C.E., Inc., on Count I, prima facie tort, and Count II, abuse of process, of P's counterclaim. The jury found for P on Count III, slander of title, and Count IV, punitive damages for slander of title, of his counterclaim. The jury awarded P $100 in actual damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. On September 18, 2000, upon motion for new trial filed by E.C.E., Inc., claiming instructional error, the trial court granted a new trial on the punitive damages issue for slander of title. The trial court in Jeffrey II was only provided the judgment from Jeffrey I and was not informed that the motion for a new trial on the punitive damages issue for slander of title had been granted. P appealed the dismissal of his second complaint.