547 S.W.3d 782
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ronald Barker, P.C. (Law Firm) provided legal services to Douglas and Kathy Walkenhorst and K and D Transportation, LLC from June 2010 to January 2012; Barker was later disbarred.
- Law Firm sued (July–Sept 2015) asserting breach of contract, open account, account stated, and quantum meruit claims; defendants were served October 5, 2015.
- Defendants missed timely answers; case set for jury trial; Law Firm moved for judgment on the pleadings in Nov 2016.
- On December 22, 2016 the trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for Law Firm on Counts V and IX (quantum meruit), awarding specified sums and post-judgment interest at 9% from judgment.
- Law Firm moved (Jan 2017) to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc to include pre-judgment interest; the trial court denied the motion after the Rule 78.06 deadline and while an appeal was pending.
- The appellate court considered whether pre-judgment interest was required on the liquidated quantum meruit awards and whether the appeal was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Law Firm is entitled to pre-judgment interest on quantum meruit awards | Pre-judgment interest should run at 9% from the dates the amounts became due (April 14, 2011 for Count V; May 14, 2011 for Count IX) because the claims were liquidated, due, and payment was demanded | Defendants implicitly contested timeliness and factual/ procedural grounds for awarding pre-judgment interest | Reversed trial court; Law Firm entitled to pre-judgment interest on both quantum meruit claims and case remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the trial court properly denied the motion to amend judgment nunc pro tunc after Rule 78.06 deadline | Motion was a timely authorized after-trial motion filed within Rule 78.04 and sought to correct the judgment to include pre-judgment interest | Court effectively lost jurisdiction by missing Rule 78.06 deadline; defendants opposed the motion | Appellate court treated the motion as an authorized after-trial motion, found the notice of appeal timely, and reviewed the pre-judgment interest issue on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 311 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for post-judgment amendment motions)
- Heckadon v. CFS Enters., Inc., 400 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Moran v. Hubbartt, 178 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (elements of quantum meruit recovery)
- Jablonski v. Barton Mut. Ins. Co., 291 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (standards for awarding pre-judgment interest under § 408.020)
- State v. Carter, 202 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (when a motion qualifies as an authorized after-trial motion)
- Payne v. Markeson, 414 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (substance-over-form approach to motions and appellate timeliness)
- Berger v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 173 S.W.3d 639 (Mo. Banc 2005) (focus on relief requested to classify post-trial motions)
- Barker v. Walkenhorst, 533 S.W.3d 792 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (related appellate proceedings concerning the same dispute)