372 S.W.3d 906
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- McNeill bought property at 3519-25 Paseo Boulevard, which the City had listed as dangerous since 2001.
- McNeill planned renovations to create a multi-tenant residential property and proceeded with substantial work after ensuring taxes/fees were paid.
- Financing fell through when the bank backed out, delaying further work.
- In June–July 2009, City inspectors directed cleanup and granted tentative time for financing; McNeill began debris removal and notified officials of progress.
- On August 8, 2009, the City demolished the building without a pre-demolition notice, despite earlier assurances and missing file notes.
- McNeill sued for wrongful demolition; the City counterclaimed for demolition costs; a four-day jury trial awarded McNeill $150,000 and zero to the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict director was a roving commission | McNeill | City | Yes; the instruction was a roving commission and improper |
| Whether the term 'wrongful' needed definition in § 67.450 | McNeill | City | Not required to define; plain meaning sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Kansas City v. Jordan, 174 S.W.3d 25 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (statutory damages for wrongful demolition; no MAI instruction exists)
- Battis v. Hofmann, 832 S.W.2d 937 (Mo.App. W.D.1992) (definition of 'wrongful' and related concepts)
- Sandler v. Schmidt, 263 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.1953) (undefined words need not be defined for jury instructions)
- In re Ginnery, 295 S.W.3d 871 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (Rule 70.02(b) instruction standards; simplicity and brevity)
- Lashmet v. McQueary, 954 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App. S.D.1997) (roving commissions and abstract instructions are prejudicial)
- Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (requirements for acts/omissions that establish liability)