399 S.W.3d 63
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Rental Company, LLC sued The Carter Group, Inc. and Ms. Carter for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to two loans and promissory notes.
- Loan 1: $27,000 loaned May 15, 2009, due July 1, 2009, with penalties including a $100/day late fee and other remedies.
- Loan 2: $22,000 loaned April 17, 2009, due June 1, 2009, with $100/day late fee and additional penalties.
- In November 2009 Carter Group submitted two checks, which were insufficient to cover principal and any penalties; funds were not repaid by due date.
- Trial court ruled in Rental Company’s favor on unjust enrichment but in Carter Group’s favor on breach of contract; awarded damages, interest, and fees.
- On appeal, Carter Group challenges unjust enrichment, consistency with breach of contract judgment, attorney fees under the American Rule, and late-fee awards; judgment reversing remand is issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment elements met? | Carter Group argues no evidence for unjust enrichment. | Rental Company contends evidence supported elements. | Unjust enrichment proven; substantial evidence supports elements. |
| Consistency with breach-of-contract ruling? | Carter Group asserts conflict between unjust enrichment and breach rulings. | Rental Company argues they are independent theories. | Findings not inconsistent; distinct theories upheld. |
| Attorney fees awarded under American Rule? | Carter Group claims improper attorney-fee award. | Rental Company argues contractual or equitable exceptions may apply. | Attorney fees improper; no contractual or equity exception justifies award. |
| Allowance of late fees supported? | Carter Group contends damages miscalculated due to paid loan amounts. | Rental Company asserts damages reflect principal sums and penalties. | Damages calculation defective; remand to determine proper amount excluding paid principal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Turnbull, 316 S.W.3d 431 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (appellate review and weight of the evidence.)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for trial court decisions.)
- Jennings v. SSM Health Care St. Louis, 355 S.W.3d 526 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (unjust enrichment vs. breach distinction.)
- Hertz Corp. v. RAKS Hospitality, Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (elements of unjust enrichment and retention of benefit.)
- Dugger v. Welp, 646 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.App. E.D.1983) (equitable exception to attorney-fee rule; unusual circumstances.)
- Brooke Drywall of Columbia, Inc. v. Building Constr. Enters., Inc., 361 S.W.3d 22 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (prevailing party concept for contractual fees.)
- Flamingo Pools, Spas, Sunrooms & More Store, Inc. v. Penrod, 993 S.W.2d 588 (Mo.App. S.D.1999) (contractual recovery of attorney’s fees.)
- Essex Contracting, Inc. v. Jefferson County, 277 S.W.3d 647 (Mo. banc 2009) (statutory or contractual basis for fees.)