Edmonds v. Hough
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 600
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Edmonds lost her home to foreclosure and sued multiple defendants involved in the sale and mortgage transactions, including appraisers Respondents.
- Stacy Ware (Unique Realty) and Mark Ware arranged a purchase contract for Edmonds at $115,000 with promises of substantial repairs prior to closing.
- Respondents provided an appraisal dated April 20 valuing the property at $115,000; HUD flagged the appraisal as suspiciously high; Edmonds paid $275 for the appraisal.
- Edmonds learned of inflated estimates and that the home had many defects; she signed closing documents April 26 and proceeded with two loans totaling $110,000.
- After closing, promised repairs were not performed, mortgage payments remained unaffordable, the house deteriorated, and Edmonds faced foreclosure and eviction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Respondents (the appraisers) on some claims; Edmonds appealed, arguing MPA reliance is unnecessary, and there are genuine issues as to causation and conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPA reliance element whether required | Edmonds argues reliance is not required for MPA claim. | Respondents contend reliance is required or the MPA claim fails. | Reliance not required; MPA claim viable with ascertainable loss. |
| Causation from appraisal in negligence claim | Appraisal caused Edmonds' damages and loan approval relied on it. | No evidence lenders relied on appraisal; appraisal is ancillary. | Genuine issue of material fact on reliance and causation |
| Conspiracy evidence sufficiency | Evidence shows coordination between appraisers and others to facilitate sale. | Conspiracy evidence is speculative and lacking. | Evidence supports conspiracy; not entitled to summary judgment as to this count |
| Summary judgment posture for appraisers | Record shows genuine issues on material facts including appraisal accuracy and damages. | No genuine issues; appraisal independent and not causally linked to damages. | Reversed to remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Beer Nuts, Ltd., 29 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (MPA private actions presume harms; no need to prove intent or reliance)
- Clement v. St. Charles Nissan, Inc., 103 S.W.3d 898 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (private MPA claim requires ascertainable loss and sale of merchandise/services)
- Webster v. Areaco Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (intent and reliance not necessary elements for MPA claim)
- Miller v. Big River Concrete, LLC, 14 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (privity not required for negligent representation; reliance may be inferred)
- Dueker v. Gill, 175 S.W.3d 662 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (negligent representation damages without strict privity)
- Gott v. First Midwest Bank of Dexter, 963 S.W.2d 432 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (circumstantial evidence treated like direct evidence for summary judgment)
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment; de novo)
- Grattan v. Union Elec. Co., 151 S.W.3d 59 (Mo. banc 2004) (summary judgment review principles)
- Webster v. Areaco Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (reliance not required for MPA claim (duplicate for emphasis))