449 S.W.3d 421
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Briggs died in 2006; Briggs' daughter filed probate actions to challenge deeds and wills against Barber.
- Barber contested Briggs' 2004 will and sought to establish a 2006 will; Briggs acted as personal representative and trustee in related proceedings.
- Mediation on June 18, 2012 addressed three lawsuits but yielded no resolution at that time.
- On June 18, 2012, Briggs' counsel orally offered settlement; later that day, an email summarized Briggs' offer.
- July–August 2012 exchanged drafts of a written settlement; Barber's counsel accepted changes; Barber executed the agreement and paid for a survey.
- On December 27, 2012, Barber moved to enforce the settlement; Briggs later refused to execute and proposed different terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a settlement was reached | Briggs argues no settlement was formed. | Barber contends there was an unequivocal settlement as of August 6, 2012. | Yes; substantial evidence supports a settlement as of August 6, 2012. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence to identify the real property | There was no precise legal description establishing the property. | Evidence identified parcels and allowed identification by survey. | Yes; substantial evidence allowed a competent surveyor to identify the property. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for affirming trial court judgments)
- Johnson v. Estate of McFarlin, 334 S.W.3d 469 (Mo.App.S.D.2010) (standard of review for judgments)
- Consolidated Grain & Barge, Co. v. Hobbs, 397 S.W.3d 467 (Mo.App.S.D.2013) (substantial evidence standard in contract/fact findings)
- Land Improvement, Inc. v. Ferguson, 800 S.W.2d 460 (Mo.App.W.D.1990) (specificity in land contracts; parol identification permissible)
- Williamson v. Burnett, 345 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.1961) (identification by description or parol aid acceptable)
- Pride v. Lewis, 179 S.W.3d 375 (Mo.App.W.D.2005) (mirror-image acceptance effect on contracts)
- Laughlin v. Moore, 434 S.W.3d 118 (Mo.App.S.D.2014) (acceptance must be positive and unambiguous)
- Katz v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 533 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (effective contract acceptance principles)
- Volker Court, LLC v. Santa Fe Apartments, LLC, 130 S.W.3d 607 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (requirements for contract formation in real property disputes)
- Precision Investments, L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Propane, L.P., 220 S.W.3d 301 (Mo.banc 2007) (contract formation; settlement determination as fact issue)
- Tinned v. R.V. Evans Co., 989 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App.E.D.1998) (contract formation when evidence is conflicting)