Green v. Plaza in Clayton Condominium Ass'n
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1126
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- THF Plaza Condominium, LLC built the Plaza; the Declaration created the Association with a five-year developer-control period that ended May 2007.
- Greens owned unit 1101 (eleventh floor) and moved in 2004; the Ahns owned unit 1601 (sixteenth floor) adjacent to the plumbing system.
- A leak on May 28, 2008 originated from a hot water pipe in unit 1601, behind a vanity and concealed by drywall, causing damage to Greens’ unit and artwork.
- Plaza instructed unit owners to file property-damage claims with insurers; Greens did not reimburse cleanup costs and filed this lawsuit two months after demanding $100,000 from THF Defendants, the Association, and the Ahns.
- At trial, THF Defendants moved for a directed verdict on Count IX (res ipsa loquitur); the trial court granted the motion, leaving the Association as the only party on the remaining negligence count.
- The jury awarded $65,553 to the Greens, finding the Association liable on Count I (specific negligence) and the Greens liable on Count IX against the Association; the Association objected on cross-appeal, and the THF Defendants challenged the res ipsa verdicts on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary hearing on attorney’s fees post-trial | Greens seek an evidentiary hearing and fees under the Act and common law | Court has discretion; evidence already before court; Rule 78.05 permissive | No abuse of discretion; hearing not required; fees denial affirmed. |
| Directed verdict on res ipsa loquitur | THF Defendants shared exclusive/concurrent control; evidence supports res ipsa | Control at time of injury, not act; no need for THF to negate inference | Directed verdict upheld; control at injury time governs res ipsa analysis. |
| Costs allocation | Greens prevailed on some counts; costs should favor Greens | THF Defendants prevailed on directed verdicts; costs follow the prevailing party | Costs taxed in favor of THF Defendants; Greens not prevailing party. |
| Attorneys’ fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitlement supports fees on appeal; statutory/common-law basis exists | No prevailing-at-appeal nor statutory/contractual basis; fees denied | Appeal fees denied; Greens not prevailing party. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peth v. Heidbrier, 789 S.W.2d 859 (Mo.App.E.D.1990) (evidentiary hearing not warranted where evidence is on record)
- Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson County, 277 S.W.3d 647 (Mo. banc 2009) (trial court may fix attorney fees as expert on fees; Rule 78.05 permissive)
- Lett v. City of St. Louis, 24 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.App.E.D.2000) (American Rule generally governs attorney fees; exceptions by statute/contract)