State ex rel. Patrick J. O'Basuyi, Relator v. The Honorable David Lee Vincent III
2014 Mo. LEXIS 156
Mo.2014Background
- Relator O’Basuyi sued TriStar for breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent conveyance; TriStar counterclaimed malicious prosecution.
- Trial court denied separate trial; joinder allowed the malicious prosecution counterclaim with underlying claims.
- Court issued preliminary writ of prohibition; issues whether Rule 55.06 permits joint trial of malicious prosecution with underlying claims.
- Missouri law requires favorable termination of the underlying suit before a malicious prosecution claim accrues, historically not joinable in one action.
- Standridge interpreted Rule 55.06 to permit some joinder in limited circumstances, but this case holds Standridge misreads Rule 55.06.
- Court holds Rule 55.06 does not authorize joinder or trial of a malicious prosecution counterclaim with the plaintiff’s underlying claims; writ made permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 55.06 permits joint trial of underlying claims with a malicious prosecution counterclaim. | O’Basuyi urged severance due to favorable termination requirement. | TriStar argued Rule 55.06 permits joining claims and counterclaims in one action. | Rule 55.06 does not permit joint trial; sever separate trial warranted. |
| Did Standridge authorize provisional filing/trial of a malicious prosecution counterclaim with the underlying action? | Standridge supports contingent counterclaims; joinder should be permitted. | Standridge does not authorize malicious prosecution counterclaims; misread rule. | Standridge does not authorize joint trial; misinterpretation; denial of joint trial proper. |
| Should the malicious prosecution counterclaim be tried separately rather than with the underlying claims? | Separate trial prevents jury confusion and prejudice. | No prejudice in joint trial or instruction; efficient disposition. | Trial court abused discretion; separate trial required and writ granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. banc 2007) (malicious prosecution elements; favorable termination required)
- Sanders v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. banc 1984) (favorable termination essential to malicious prosecution claim)
- Standridge v. GMAC, 181 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. banc 2006) (joinder rules; allowed proceedings after termination in Standridge)
- John Deere Co. of St. Louis v. Short, 378 S.W.2d 496 (Mo. 1964) (no malicious prosecution claim accrues until favorable termination)
- Zickel v. Knell, 210 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. 1948) (premature malicious prosecution claim cannot accrue before termination)