Fugate v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc.
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 237
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fugate sued Jackson Hewitt for alleged violations of Missouri's credit services organization (CSO) statutes in connection with a refund anticipation loan (RAL) for Fugate.
- Fugate alleges Jackson Hewitt obtained the RAL from SBBT and was paid indirectly by Fugate for arranging the loan.
- The RAL included Fugate’s loan principal and the tax preparation fees charged by Jackson Hewitt.
- Fugate claimed the form and disclosures required by CSO statutes were not provided.
- The circuit court dismissed, finding Jackson Hewitt not a CSO or, alternatively, that Fugate failed to plead damages.
- The Western District reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson Hewitt is a CSO under §407.637.1 | Fugate asserted direct/indirect payment satisfies CSO definition. | Hewitt contends only direct payment qualifies. | Yes, Fugate sufficiently pled a CSO relationship. |
| Whether Fugate pled damages under §407.644.1(1) | Alleges damages equal to all fees and charges for the RAL. | No damages proven since CSO status disputed. | Fugate pleaded injury; circuit court erred in dismissing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamid v. Kansas City Club, 293 S.W.3d 123 (Mo.App.2009) (standard for dismissal on state-of-claim grounds)
- Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (claims dismissal standards; liberal pleadings)
- Maxwell v. Daviess County, 190 S.W.3d 606 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (statutory interpretation where language is unambiguous)
- Lakeridge Enters., Inc. v. Knox, 311 S.W.3d 268 (Mo.App.2010) (pleading standard; broadest liberal construction of petition)
- Turner v. Sch. Dist. of Clayton, 318 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. banc 2010) (plain meaning governs when language is clear)
- Bosworth v. Sewell, 918 S.W.2d 773 (Mo. banc 1996) (interpretation of ordinary statutory terms)