379 S.W.3d 849
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Property damaged by 1993 flood; structures deemed uninhabitable and Court ordered demolition/elevation or removal.
- City pursued 2003–2004 actions for violations of municipal ordinances; 2004 order found structures uninhabitable and ordered demolition.
- 2006 Court of Appeals mandate affirmed demolition-related judgments; City sought to compel compliance via subsequent orders.
- Appellants filed 2008 and 2009 TRO actions in St. Louis County (venue improper) seeking to halt demolition; those actions were dismissed or transferred.
- City counterclaimed for abuse of process, alleging Appellants filed TRO actions with improper collateral purpose and venue manipulation; damages sought.
- Trial court denied directed verdict; jury found abuse of process, awarding actual and punitive damages; appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of improper use of process | Lambert/Alt claim insufficient evidence of improper use. | City argues TROs were improper use to delay demolition and harass. | Sufficient evidence supported improper use of process. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of improper purpose | Lambert/Alt contend no improper motive shown. | City asserts ulterior purpose to delay and harass regarding demolition. | Sufficient evidence of improper purpose supported by verdict. |
| Whether damages evidence supported submitting punitive damages | Lambert/Alt claim damages were speculative; no punitive basis. | City asserts clear and convincing proof of evil motive or recklessness. | Punitive damages instruction proper; evidence supported finding of outrageous conduct. |
| Whether verdict director was a roving commission | Lambert/Alt contend it failed to identify specific proceedings. | City contends acquiescence to modified wording preserves error-free instruction. | No preserved error; plain error review denied. |
| Whether admission of prior findings about attempts to remedy was reversible error | Alt argues improper admission of Judge Rauch’s findings. | City argues evidence limited, rebuttal, and open-door doctrine applies. | No reversible error; discretionary ruling within trial court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diehl v. Fred Weber, Inc., 309 S.W.3d 309 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (no abuse of process if action has legitimate function)
- Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (ulterior purpose inferred from wrongful use of process)
- Guirl v. Guirl, 708 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.App. E.D.1986) (punitive damages proper where malice shown in abuse of process)
- Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for punitive damages; must show evil motive or reckless indifference)
- Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005) (evidence-admission review for abuse of discretion)
- Klotz v. St. Anthony’s Medical Center, 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. banc 2010) (de novo review for submission of punitive instruction)
- Atkinson v. Corson, 289 S.W.3d 269 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (plain-error review for instructional issues)
- State v. Rowe, 363 S.W.3d 114 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (preservation and plain-error framework)
- Roe v. Crow, not applicable () (placeholder for non-citable example)