397 S.W.3d 467
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Consolidated sued Mark Hobbs for an implied-in-law contract/ unjust enrichment and for fraud; trial court ruled for Consolidated on Counts I–II but not Count V (partnership).
- George Hobbs died 2007; he and Mark were not partners but shared farming; George contracted with Consolidated in his own name for crops.
- After death, Mark delivered some crops under one contract but did not perform seven others, causing Consolidated to incur about $60,520 in higher costs to cover the contracts.
- Mark administered George’s probate estate; Consolidated did not timely file probate claims; Mark allegedly omitted assets from the inventory and later distributions favored him; Consolidated filed suit in 2009.
- Consolidated sought to impose equitable relief (constructive trust) and asserted partnership liability; the case involved statutory probate claim bars and issues of reliance/injury for fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable relief barred by probate claim statute | Consolidated argues unjust enrichment via estate impacts despite lack of timely probate claim. | Mark Hobbs contends statute 473.444 bars claims not filed within one year of death. | Unjust enrichment claim barred; we reverse on Counts I–II to extent favoring Consolidated. |
| Fraud claim under 472.013 proven despite probate inventory | Consolidated relied on Mark’s fiduciary duties and inventory omissions causing injury. | No injury or reliance shown; inventory not relied upon timely; Mark’s conduct did not cause injury. | Claim under 472.013 reversed; no injury proven. |
| Common law fraud proven from conduct on seven contracts | Mark’s actions misled Consolidated regarding performance of contracts. | No false representation; no promises to perform disputed contracts; perfomance on other contracts not evidence of fraud. | Common law fraud claim reversed; no actionable misrepresentation shown. |
| Existence of partnership between George and Mark proven | Evidence showed partnership by conduct and intent to share profits and losses. | No written or expressed partnership; parties did not intend to form a partnership. | Denied; Consolidated failed to prove a partnership. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reviewing trial court judgments in Missouri courts)
- Johnson v. Estate of McFarlin, 334 S.W.3d 469 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (substantial evidence and standard of review in equity/estate matters)
- Hatfield v. McCluney, 893 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1995) (statutory probate claim bars; due process considerations)
- Winslow v. Nolan, 319 S.W.3d 497 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (burden to prove partnership; existence requires clear evidence of agreement/intent)