476 S.W.3d 291
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Holliday Investments built an earth-contact home (Mar–Sep 2009) on land under contract from Richard and Annette Sells; Holliday did not do a title search before contracting and later did not read title searches that disclosed a recorded Hawthorn deed of trust.
- Hawthorn had a recorded deed of trust on the property (recorded Mar 12, 2008) before construction; Sells later defaulted and Hawthorn foreclosed (May 7, 2012) and became owner.
- Holliday sued Hawthorn seeking reimbursement for the value of the home, pleading quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and alleging Hawthorn knew or should have known of the improvements when it made the loan.
- Holliday demanded a jury trial; Hawthorn objected that the claim was equitable. The circuit court struck the jury demand and tried the case to the court, which ruled for Hawthorn on Holliday’s claim (Holliday prevailed on defendant’s counterclaim).
- On appeal Holliday argued it was entitled to a jury because its claim was quantum meruit (an action at law) and MAI 26.05 supports jury submission; the court affirmed, finding no prejudicial error in denying a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holliday was entitled to a jury trial on its quantum meruit claim | Quantum meruit is an action at law; MAI 26.05 exists for jury submission, so Holliday timely demanded a jury | The claim is equitable in nature (or insufficiently pled for quantum meruit); therefore no jury right | Court declined to decide entitlement wholesale but held Holliday showed no prejudice from denial because its evidence failed to support quantum meruit submission |
| Whether Holliday’s evidence supported a quantum meruit claim | Holliday asserted benefit was conferred to Hawthorn by the addition of the house to collateral, so knowledge/acceptance by Hawthorn was unnecessary | Quantum meruit requires services/materials furnished at defendant’s request or with defendant’s acquiescence (knowledge implied) | Held that quantum meruit requires acceptance/acquiescence (knowledge); Holliday admitted Hawthorn lacked knowledge, so evidence could not support jury submission |
| Whether unjust enrichment/quantum meruit elements were met given lien preexisted construction | Holliday argued unjust retention of benefit sufficed for recovery | Hawthorn argued lack of acceptance/acquiescence and that enrichment was not unjust under the facts | Court found Holliday’s undisputed evidence undermined key elements (no acceptance/knowledge), defeating the claim |
| Whether denial of jury demand was prejudicial error | Holliday claimed entitlement to jury trial would have changed outcome | Hawthorn argued any error was harmless because facts could not support jury issues | Court held any error was not prejudicial and affirmed judgment for Hawthorn |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review)
- Turner v. Wesslak, 453 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. App. 2014) (quantum meruit as remedy for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment)
- County Asphalt Paving Co. v. Mosley Constr., Inc., 239 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (elements of quantum meruit and purpose to prevent unjust enrichment)
- Brunner v. City of Arnold, 427 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. 2013) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Johnson Group, Inc. v. Grasso Bros., Inc., 939 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. App. 1997) (distinguishing recovery measures for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment)
- Hayes v. Price, 311 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. banc 2010) (substantial evidence required to submit issues to a jury)
- State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. banc 2003) (right to jury depends on issues tendered by pleadings)