569 S.W.3d 514
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Aughenbaugh met Tim Williams in jail and later worked at Budget Motors, buying cars using funds wired from Aughenbaugh to an account in Mary Williams’s name and using a dealer license held by John Taylor and used by the Williamses.
- Aughenbaugh (and friend Kathy Bade) believed they owned the cars they purchased and were entitled to keep all proceeds; the Williamses (and Taylor) treated cars as titled to “Budget Motors” and asserted ownership or rights to proceeds.
- Disputes arose in 2013: cars placed on various lots were impounded or went “missing,” Tim Williams sold some cars and did not remit proceeds to Aughenbaugh/Bade. Plaintiffs sued for partnership formation/dissolution, accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
- At close of Plaintiffs’ case the court directed verdicts for all defendants on the partnership-based claims and for Taylor on all other claims; the jury submitted only breach of contract and conversion claims against the Williamses.
- Jury found for Plaintiffs on conversion against Tim and Mary Williams, for the Williamses on breach of contract; court later granted a post-judgment new trial for Mary Williams on grounds the apparent-authority instruction lacked evidentiary support. Appellate court held the trial court exceeded authority in granting new trial on a ground not raised in the motion, reinstated Mary Williams conversion verdict, affirmed directed verdicts and court rulings on unjust enrichment, and affirmed judgments against Tim Williams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could grant a new trial for Mary Williams based on lack of evidence of apparent authority when that ground was not in the motion for new trial | Plaintiffs: Trial court properly found Instruction 6 (apparent authority) unsupported and new trial appropriate | Mary: Motion for new trial did not assert apparent-authority error; court lacked jurisdiction to grant new trial on that unraised ground after 30 days | Court: Granting new trial on a ground not stated in the motion (and after 30 days) was unauthorized; order void; conversion judgment against Mary Williams reinstated (Stretch; Steele) |
| Whether Plaintiffs made a submissible case that a partnership existed among Aughenbaugh, the Williamses, and Taylor | Plaintiffs: Testimony and conduct showed a partnership and mutual intent to share profits/losses | Defendants: No mutual intent to commingle profits—each kept profits on cars they bought; evidence was self-serving and insufficient | Court: No substantial evidence of partnership (no community of interest or mutual agreement); directed verdicts for defendants affirmed (Norber; Morrison) |
| Whether Plaintiffs made a submissible case against Taylor for conversion and breach of contract based on agency/principal liability | Plaintiffs: Taylor authorized Tim to use dealer license (including repossession), so Taylor knew of/benefited from conversion and is liable as principal | Taylor: Authority to use license for ordinary dealership transactions does not permit taking plaintiffs’ unsold cars; no evidence Taylor knew of or benefited from alleged conversion or authorized agreements with Aughenbaugh | Court: Insufficient evidence that Taylor authorized the conversion, knew of it, benefited from it, or authorized contracts with Aughenbaugh; directed verdict for Taylor affirmed (Fricke; Hamilton Music) |
| Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment for defendants on unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs: Defendants received benefits (use of license, sale proceeds) that would make retention unjust | Defendants: Evidence disputed; no clear proof of unjust retention or inequity; factual disputes for court weigh against restitution | Court: Trial court’s equitable finding was not against the weight of the evidence; judgments for defendants on unjust enrichment affirmed (Pitman principles; Day) |
| Whether verdict against Tim Williams for conversion was against the weight of the evidence, and other trial rulings (spreadsheet exhibit, trial time) | Tim: Verdict lacks probative support; spreadsheet inadmissible; trial time allocated unfairly, prejudicing defense | Plaintiffs: Evidence and summary exhibit admissible; trial management within discretion; jury credibility determinations binding | Court: Denied Tim’s points—trial court properly denied new trial on weight ground; spreadsheet admission not an abuse; time-management complaints lacked record/proffer; judgments affirmed (Meyer standards) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stretch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 645 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. App. 1983) (trial court may not grant new trial after 30 days on grounds not raised in motion)
- Steele v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 147 S.W.3d 781 (Mo. App. 2004) (standard on new-trial timeliness and scope)
- Norber v. Marcotte, 134 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. 2004) (elements and proof required to show partnership)
- Morrison v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 23 S.W.3d 902 (Mo. App. 2000) (partnership requires definite, specific mutual agreement)
- Fricke v. Valley Prod. Credit Ass’n, 778 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. App. 1989) (principal liability where principal knows of conversion and benefits)
- Hamilton Music, Inc. v. Gordon A. Gundaker Real Est. Co., Inc., 666 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. App. 1984) (disclosed principal liability for authorized agent contracts)
- Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Props., Inc., 998 S.W.2d 818 (Mo. App. 1999) (equitable claims in bench-tried matters reviewed under Murphy v. Carron standards)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (bench-trial standard: affirm unless no substantial evidence, against weight, or erroneous application of law)
- Day v. Hupp, 528 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. App. 2017) (deference to trial court’s weighing of conflicting evidence in equitable determinations)