Skaggs Regional Medical Center v. Powers
419 S.W.3d 920
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Skaggs Regional Medical Center provided medical services to the defendant (Appellant) and billed for those services; the defendant did not pay.
- Skaggs executed an assignment to Credit Bureau Systems, Inc. under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 425.300 "for purposes of billing, collection, and bringing suit as the real party in interest in Assignee and Assignor's names," describing authority to prosecute suits in the assignor's name.
- The account was not re-assigned back to Skaggs; Skaggs nonetheless filed suit on the debt in its own name.
- At a one-witness bench trial the defendant did not contest the underlying debt but argued Skaggs lacked standing because it had assigned its rights to the collection agency.
- The trial court entered judgment for Skaggs; the defendant appealed solely on the standing/real-party-in-interest issue.
- The appellate court reviewed standing de novo and considered whether an assignment "for collection" under § 425.300 divests the assignor of all rights to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an assignor who assigns a claim for collection under § 425.300 retains standing to sue | Skaggs: assignment was for collection and permitted Skaggs to prosecute in its name; it retained sufficient interest to sue | Appellant: assignment transferred all rights; Skaggs was no longer the real party in interest and thus lacked standing | Court held Skaggs retained a sufficient beneficial interest when assignment is for collection and therefore had standing to sue |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Dannie Gilder, Inc., 966 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. App. 1998) (discusses effects of assignment on joinder and jurisdiction)
- Daniele v. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, 282 S.W.3d 876 (Mo. App. 2009) (absolute assignment divests assignor when entire cause is assigned)
- McMullin v. Borgers, 806 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. App. 1991) (assignment principles for real party in interest)
- C & M Developers, Inc. v. Berbiglia, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 176 (Mo. App. 1979) (conditional/secure assignments do not fully divest assignor)
- Cantor v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 547 S.W.2d 220 (Mo. App. 1977) (assignments for security retain assignor's interest to sue)
- Rohner, Gehrig & Co. v. Capital City Bank, 655 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1981) (assignments for collection leave assignor a sufficient interest to sue)