602 S.W.3d 283
Mo. Ct. App.2020Background
- Condo Association obtained a March 2016 judgment against prior owners (the Hallidays) for unpaid unit and dock assessments, late charges and interest; the judgment terminated the boat-slip lease and stated it constituted a lien on Unit 3, Building 15.
- Randall and Jeff purchased the Unit at a sheriff’s sale in May 2016, knowing the boat slip was not included.
- In June 2016 the Association told Randall and Jeff the lien amount was $8,154 (assessments, finance/late charges, lien charges, attorney fees, and dock assessments for May–June).
- In July 2016 Randall and Jeff, who (with Angela) were Condo Association board members at the time, voluntarily paid $4,077 each (total $8,154) to satisfy the lien.
- They obtained a Release of All Liens and sold the Unit in November 2016 for a profit.
- Plaintiffs later sued for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation about the lien’s validity and amount; the trial court found the lien valid, found no credible evidence of misrepresentation, and held the voluntary payment doctrine barred recovery. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the lien on the Unit | Lien (and amount) was invalid; Plaintiffs should recover payments | Lien was valid; Plaintiffs voluntarily paid a claimed debt | Court: Even if lien questionable, voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery; lien effectively satisfied by payment |
| Inclusion of dock assessments and attorney fees in lien amount | Dock assessments and attorney fees were improperly included in lien sum | Those items were part of the balance communicated and claimed as owing | Court: Inclusion challenged is a mistake of law by payors; voluntary payment rule precludes recovery |
| Fraud/negligent misrepresentation about lien amount | Board/Association misrepresented lien amount and validity | No credible evidence of material misrepresentation; Plaintiffs knew facts (board members) | Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove misrepresentation; Point preserved improperly (multifarious) and lacks required proof; judgment for Association affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (explaining voluntary payment doctrine and that mistake of law does not permit restitution)
- Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2013) (voluntary payment doctrine definition and elements)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review for court-tried cases)
- Edwards v. City of Ellisville, 426 S.W.3d 644 (Mo. App. 2013) (definition of mistake of law versus mistake of fact)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2010) (framework for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge)