Marquis Financial Services of Indiana Inc. v. Peet
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 405
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Marquis sued Dr. Peet (and associates) for fraud and unjust enrichment after devices were allegedly used, with default judgment earlier against others.
- Jury awarded $0 actual damages and $500,000 punitive on fraud; $431,034.14 actual and $38,793.07 interest on unjust enrichment.
- Court entered judgment for Marquis combining counts, including $500,000 punitive on fraud despite no corroborating actual damages on that count.
- Appellate court reversed punitive damages and remanded for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud count; other aspects affirmed.
- Key issues concern preservation of error, res judicata/collateral estoppel, unjust enrichment, in limine, and punitive damages legality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error | Peet preserved all grounds in motions. | Some grounds not raised in proper form, thus not preserved. | Several points not preserved; limited review. |
| Res judicata/collateral estoppel (Point I) | Defense pleaded res judicata; attacks original default judgment. | Argued against Marquis under collateral estoppel/res judicata defenses. | Not preserved; claims waived due to failure to raise specifics. |
| Unjust enrichment (Point III) | Evidence supported unjust enrichment claim. | No sufficient evidence for unjust enrichment. | Not preserved; cannot review; claim disposed with other issues. |
| Punitive damages (Points IV & V) | Punitive damages proper despite concurrent or lack of certain damages. | No actual damages on fraud count; punitive damages improper. | Punitive damages improper; JNOV granted to reduce; remand for JNOV on fraud count. |
| Submissibility of fraud count (Point II) | Fraud evidence supported submission. | Insufficient evidence for fraud. | Mooted by punitive-damages reversal; not separately reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newell Rubbermaid v. Efficient Solutions, 252 S.W.3d 164 (Mo.App.2007) (tests for submissibility and substantial evidence required for jury submission)
- Coon v. Dryden, 46 S.W.3d 81 (Mo.App.2001) (evidence sufficiency for liability; directed verdict standard)
- Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011) (Rule 72.01(a) specificity required to preserve grounds)
- Pope v. Pope, 179 S.W.3d 442 (Mo.App.2005) (en banc; importance of preserving specific grounds for directed verdict)
- Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp., 975 S.W.2d 155 (Mo.App.1997) (en banc precedent on preservation and appellate review)
- Environ. Energy Partners v. Siemens Bldg., 178 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App.2005) (punitive damages require actual damages; double damages avoidance)