Mary Lowe v. Susan Hill
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 575
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mary Lowe sued her daughter Susan Hill for money had and received and unjust enrichment, alleging an express oral loan of about $45,000 on January 4, 2002, to be repaid in monthly payments around $330 at 4.875%.
- Lowe alleged Hill acknowledged the loan in writing on October 7, 2009, with approximately $29,600 remaining due.
- Hill allegedly stopped making payments in March 2012; Lowe sought $18,862.22 plus interest.
- A bench trial occurred on January 28, 2013; Lowe testified as the sole witness, Hill offered no evidence or cross-examination.
- The circuit court entered judgment for Lowe on the implied-contract theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment, plus interest.
- Hill appealed, arguing that an express contract covered the subject matter, so implied-contract theories could not support recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express contract bars recovery on implied-contract claims. | Lowe contends no express contract prevented recovery because the circuit court found an implied contract existed. | Hill argues the existence of an express contract precludes money had and received and unjust enrichment claims. | Yes; express contract bars implied-contract recovery. |
| Whether the trial record supports a breach of contract theory instead of implied-contract theories. | Lowe asserts the record supports an implied contract theory as pled. | Hill notes the circuit court found express contract terms; recovery on implied theories is improper. | Record supports breach of contract theory; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karpierz v. Easley, 68 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. App. 2002) (implied contract barred where express contract exists)
- Pitman v. City of Columbia, 309 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. App. 2010) (unjust enrichment and money had and received require an unjust retention of a benefit)
- A&L Underground, Inc. v. Leigh Const., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. App. 2005) (implied contract arises only where there is no express contract)
- Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431 (Mo. App. 2010) (no recovery under equitable theories if an express contract governs the subject matter)
- White v. Pruiett, 39 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. 2001) (unjust enrichment elements; akin to contract implied in law)