Sparks v. PNC Bank
400 S.W.3d 454
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Homeowners sued Millsap PC and Millsap LLC (Respondents) and PNC Bank over a deed of trust foreclosure attempt on their home in Missouri.
- The deed of trust secured a $142,500 loan from National City Mortgage Company (later National City’s successor, PNC Bank).
- Homeowners sought modification but were notified in Aug/Sep 2010 that modification was ineligible and foreclosure would proceed; Respondents sent a reinstatement demand.
- Foreclosure sale was scheduled for Oct 15, 2010, but Homeowners paid the reinstatement amount (except a fee discrepancy) and kept their home.
- Homeowners amended the petition in Nov 2011 to assert negligence (Count III) and unjust enrichment (Count IV) against Respondents; Counts I–II targeted PNC Bank.
- The trial court dismissed Respondents from the suit; Homeowners appeal challenging dismissal on grounds of trustee duties and unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Homeowners pled the trustee’s legal duties under mortgage documents. | Homeowners alleged Respondents had duties of impartiality, reasonable investigation, fairness, and avoidance of unfairness. | Respondents argue no legal duty to investigate beyond express terms; pleadings failed to show enforceable duties. | Dismissed; no pleaded legal duty under the documents. |
| Whether Homeowners pleaded facts supporting unjust enrichment against Respondents. | Homeowners claim Respondents benefited unjustly from reinstatement payments due to breach of trustee duties. | Respondents contend unjust enrichment requires a specific unjust retention tied to breach, not shown by pleadings. | Dismissed; insufficient facts to show unjust enrichment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard for reviewing dismissal: assume true and decide if elements of a cause are pleaded)
- Spires v. Edgar, 513 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. banc 1974) (trustee must investigate if knowledge of anything that should legally prevent foreclosure)
- Hull v. Pace, 61 Mo.App. 117 (Mo.App.1895) (trustee duties are in matters connected with foreclosure and within instrument terms)
- Killion v. Bank Midwest, N.A., 987 S.W.2d 801 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (no submissible case for breach of fiduciary duty despite asserted facts)
- Thielecke v. Davis, 260 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.1953) (debtors' tender may not prevent foreclosure after acceleration absent legal basis)
- Hudspeth v. Tree Mart, Inc., 573 S.W.2d 697 (Mo.App.1978) (pleading to recover on note can be sufficient with reference to instrument terms)
- State ex rel. E.A. Martin Machinery Co. v. Line One, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 924 (Mo.App. S.D.2003) (Rule 55.22: pleadings may recite or attach written instruments; need not quote verbatim)
- US Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Cox, 341 S.W.3d 846 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (unjust enrichment requires concrete showing of unjust retention of benefits)