510 S.W.3d 887
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2006 King leased property to Scott for $250/month rent plus $250/month toward repairs, with an agreement that rent paid would count toward a $15,000 purchase price once the property was brought up to code.
- Scott sued (2013) seeking specific performance to force sale, alleging he had spent years bringing the property up to code and that King agreed to sell for $8,000 in 2013 but refused to complete the sale.
- King counterclaimed for unjust enrichment and ejectment, alleging Scott occupied the property from June 2006 to 2015 without paying rent.
- At bench trial the court discredited Scott’s testimony and receipts, found he paid only $1,000, awarded King $27,500 in back rent, and entered judgment for King on counterclaims.
- On appeal Scott raised five points; the court dismissed three for noncompliance with Rule 84.04(d)(1) but reviewed two points ex gratia concerning (1) statute of limitations and (2) prejudgment interest.
- The appellate court affirmed: Scott waived a specific statute-of-limitations defense by not pleading the statute, and King’s unjust-enrichment claim for unpaid rent was liquidated so prejudgment interest under §408.020 was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King’s recovery for unpaid rent was barred by the 5‑year statute of limitations | Scott: unjust‑enrichment claim is subject to §516.120(1) five‑year limit; recovery should be limited to five years | King: trial court awarded unpaid rent as unjust enrichment and Scott failed to plead the specific statute of limitations defense | Held: Scott waived the defense by failing to plead the specific statute provision; point denied |
| Whether prejudgment interest under §408.020 was improper because claim was unliquidated | Scott: unjust‑enrichment damages were unliquidated, so prejudgment interest is not permitted | King: rent amount ($250/month) and duration were ascertainable; demand satisfied by counterclaim filing | Held: Claim was liquidated (ascertainable by computation using agreed rent); prejudgment interest proper and compulsory |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Bankers Ass’n, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 448 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. banc 2014) (courts prefer deciding merits but procedural rules like Rule 84.04 are mandatory)
- Bateman v. Platte Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 39 (Mo. banc 2012) (a party must plead the specific statute‑of‑limitations provision relied upon)
- Jablonski v. Barton Mut. Ins. Co., 291 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (definition of liquidated claim: fixed or readily ascertainable by computation)
- Watters v. Travel Guard Int’l, 136 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (filing suit can satisfy demand requirement for prejudgment interest)
- Catron v. Columbia Mut. Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. banc 1987) (award smaller than demand does not preclude prejudgment interest on ascertained damages)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standards of review in bench trials)