Herron v. Barnard
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 133
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Herron appeals a bench-trial denial of conversion and replevin for items Herron placed in office space leased from Barnard.
- The lease was between Barnard (on behalf of Baltimore Avenue Investors, LLC) and Boka Powell, with Herron as manager of the Kansas City office for Boka Powell.
- Herron purchased many items; Barnard or Boka Powell supplied others, and several items were later transferred to Herron via separation agreement.
- The dispute centers on whether items are Herron’s property or fixtures that became Barnard’s upon lease termination, and whether Herron abandoned any items.
- The trial court found for Barnard on most items but not the door and transom; no findings of fact or conclusions of law were issued, and Herron appealed.
- The appellate court reverses as to all items except the door and transom, remanding for Herron’s remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Herron proved conversion/replevin elements. | Herron owned or had right to possess the items. | Barnard owned fixtures and could reclaim items. | Herron established conversion/replevin as a matter of law for most items. |
| Whether items were fixtures supporting Barnard’s ownership. | Most items were not fixtures; they were trade fixtures. | Items were fixtures with annexation, adaptation, and intent. | Door and transom were fixtures; others were not substantial fixtures. |
| Whether Herron abandoned the property. | Herron never clearly abandoned; Barnard permitted continued possession. | Herron abandoned by leaving after lease expiration. | No substantial evidence of abandonment; not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Estate of Hunt, 348 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. App. W.D.2011) (elements of conversion and replevin; burden on plaintiff to show possession)
- Lafayette v. Courtney, 189 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. App. W.D.2006) (replevin defined; possession requirement)
- Blackwell Printing Co. v. Blackwell-Wiel-andy Co., 440 S.W.2d 433 (Mo.1969) (fixture elements: annexation, adaptation, intent)
- Freeman v. Barrs, 237 S.W.3d 285 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (adaptation/intent considerations for fixtures)
- Matz v. Miami Club Restaurant, 127 S.W.2d 738 (Mo.App.1939) (trade fixtures concept; removable fixtures)
- Hoffman Mgmt. Corp. v. SLC of N. Am., Inc., 800 S.W.2d 755 (Mo.App. W.D.1990) (abandonment requires clear intent and external act)
- In re Marla Jean, Inc., 25 B.R. 282 (W.D. Mo.1982) (trade fixtures; furnishings for operation of business)
- Rothermich v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank, 10 S.W.3d 610 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (adaptation element; peculiarly adapted items)
- In re Estate of Horton, 606 S.W.2d 792 (Mo.App. S.D.1980) (tenants’ rights to remove fixtures; presumption against permanent annexation)