340 S.W.3d 623
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- GALIC placed under Administrative Supervision Aug 10, 1999, by the Director, making GAMHC a party to supervision.
- September 17, 1999: Director files Verified Petition for Rehabilitation; court appoints the Director as Rehabilitator.
- Dewey & LeBoeuf advised GAMHC and its subsidiaries; GAMHC’s liquidity crisis proceeds toward liquidation.
- GenAm and GALIC sale to MetLife approved Nov 10, 1999 amid ongoing liquidation proceedings.
- Liquidators later appoint a Special Deputy Liquidator; they file a legal malpractice action against Dewey & LeBoeuf in May 2009.
- Dewey & LeBoeuf amends counterclaim seeking declaratory relief; trial court dismisses amended counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; appeal ensues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended counterclaim was a final appealable judgment | Liquidators: dismissal is not final because defenses remain and the claim is not wholly resolved. | Dewey: judgment is final under Rule 74.01(b) and Wyciskalla because it resolves the counterclaim. | Not final; dismissal did not resolve all matters; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether declaratory relief was proper where an adequate remedy existed by defense | Liquidators: declaratory relief unnecessary because defenses could be raised in the pending action. | Dewey: declaratory relief appropriate to determine standing/authority before continuing. | Declaratory relief not proper when defenses exist in an ongoing action. |
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim | Liquidators: court lacked authority to hear amended counterclaim under liquidation statutes. | Dewey: court had jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory action under §527.010. | Court had subject matter jurisdiction; issue was finality, not jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (two kinds of jurisdiction; subject matter vs. personal jurisdiction)
- Langston v. Missouri Bd. of Probation & Parole, 325 S.W.3d 562 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (final judgment concept for appellate review)
- West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (final judgment rule and Rule 74.01(b) considerations)
- Lunceford v. Houghtlin, 326 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (judgment must completely dispose of a claim to be final)
- Atkins v. Jester, 309 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. App. S.D.2010) (partial judgments not final when a single claim remains)
- Van Dyke v. LVS Bldg. Corp., 174 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. App. W.D.2005) (declaratory judgment power is remedial and not a substitute for existing remedies)
- Preferred Physicians Mut. Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Preferred Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Group, 916 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. App. W.D.1995) (declaratory relief not available where adequate defense exists)
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Donnelly, 298 S.W.3d 8 (Mo. App. W.D.2009) (greater justification to apply the rule against declaratory judgments when an action is pending)