557 S.W.3d 531
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Hunter was injured in a car accident and treated by Dr. George R. Schoedinger, who billed $59,375.00.
- Before treatment, Schoedinger (Appellant) and attorney John Beck (Respondent) signed a written "Guaranty" (Hunter was not a signatory) that purported to grant a "lien on any proceeds of settlement in [Hunter's] case after payment of attorney's fees."
- After Beck settled Hunter's claim, Beck paid Schoedinger $39,901.15 from the settlement proceeds and refused the remaining $19,455.85, citing Missouri statutory lien procedures and limits under § 430.225 because Schoedinger had not filed a statutory lien.
- Schoedinger sued Beck and Hunter (later dismissing Hunter) for breach of contract, account stated, and quantum meruit seeking the unpaid amount under the Guaranty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Beck, finding the Guaranty preempted by § 430.225 and relying on Huey v. Meek; the court also held the Guaranty was not ambiguous and, as drafted, sought a lien on settlement proceeds rather than personal liability of Beck.
- On appeal, Schoedinger argued the Guaranty was ambiguous and could be read as a personal guaranty of payment by Beck; the court affirmed summary judgment for Beck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written Guaranty created enforceable personal liability of Beck or a consensual lien on Hunter's settlement that survives § 430.225 | Schoedinger: the Guaranty is ambiguous and can be construed as a personal guaranty making Beck liable, so summary judgment was inappropriate | Beck: the Guaranty, read plainly, grants a lien on settlement proceeds and is preempted by § 430.225; Beck never intended personal liability | Court: Guaranty is not ambiguous; it attempted to create a consensual lien but is preempted by § 430.225, so Beck is entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Huey v. Meek, 419 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (consensual lien that conflicts with § 430.225 is preempted; statutory remedy is exclusive)
- McGhee v. Dixon, 973 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. banc 1998) (statutory remedies control when they conflict with case-law remedies)
- Eveland v. Eveland, 156 S.W.3d 366 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (contract ambiguity arises only when the four corners make terms reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning)