Coverdell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
375 S.W.3d 874
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Coverdells sue Countrywide and Gross for contract and tort claims related to a real estate sale and alleged misrepresentations; trial court granted summary judgment for Countrywide and dismissed all counts.
- Gross owned the Blue Eye, Missouri property secured by two deeds of trust; Countrywide serviced the loan and sent a Notice of Default.
- In Oct 2005, an appraisal valued the Property at $232,000; Gross listed it for $239,900 with a contingent-sale caveat noting mortgage company approval.
- Coverdells offered full price with contingencies tied to Gross’s mortgage company, which Gross countered to require lender and purchaser agreement; the counter-offer was accepted.
- Countrywide later declined to approve the Gross–Coverdell sale; Barter (realtor) and Silliman (Coverdells’ agent) were informed the sale would not close and might be relisted at a higher price.
- The Coverdells sought to establish they were third-party beneficiaries to a Countrywide–Gross agreement, and that Countrywide’s knowledge and interference caused damages; the trial court found no admissible evidence of third-party beneficiary status, knowledge, or misrepresentations, and granted summary judgment for Countrywide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coverdells are third-party beneficiaries to the Negotiation Agreement | Coverdells relied on Negotiation Agreement to show beneficiary status | Negotiation Agreement only benefitted loan holder and insurers; no beneficiary clause | No, they were not third-party beneficiaries. |
| Whether Countrywide knew of and interfered with Zumalt contract | Countrywide had knowledge via banker communications and agent testimony | Evidence is hearsay and insufficient to show knowledge or intentional interference | Summary judgment proper; no admissible proof of knowledge or interference. |
| Whether Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations supported negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation claims | Countrywide approved the sale and misrepresented, relying by Coverdells | No timely reliance or false representation established; early December 2005 events predate misrepresentation | Summary judgment proper; no admissible reliance evidence. |
| Whether there was admissible evidence to support third-party beneficiary or misrepresentation theories | Barter/Silliman depositions and McNeive testimony show Countrywide involvement | Testimony is hearsay or precluded; no direct Countrywide contact with Coverdells | Court affirmed summary judgment for Countrywide on all counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Verni v. Cleveland Chiropractic College, 212 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2007) (breach-by-third-party-beneficiary standing)
- Environmental Energy Partners, Inc. v. Siemens Bldg. Tech., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 691 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (elements of tortious interference cited)
- Birdsong v. Bydalek, 953 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) (torts elements and interference standards)
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standards and burden shifting)
- First Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Ricon, Inc., 311 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (summary judgment evidence standards)