ANGELA KOELLER and JEFF HASKENHOFF v. MALIBU SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-RespondentANGELA KOELLER and JEFF HASKENHOFF v. MALIBU SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals
Southern District
Division Two
AFFIRMED
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal involves a lien placed on Unit 3, Building 15 of the Malibu Shores Condominium (the Unit) in favor of the Condo Association. Before Randall and Jeff purchased the Unit, Michael and Wendy Halliday (the Hallidays) were the owners. The Hallidays also leased boat slip number 11 on dock C (the boat slip) from the Condo Association. Monthly maintenance fees for the Unit and the boat slip were billed by the Condo Association as unit assessments and dock assessments on the statements provided to the Hallidays.
The Hallidays became delinquent in the payment of their unit and dock assessment fees and charges. The Condo Association sued the Hallidays for past-due assessments and sought forfeiture of the boat slip pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement. In
In May 2016, Randall and Jeff purchased the Unit at a sheriff‘s sale for $52,000. Randall and Jeff knew they were not purchasing the boat slip.
In June 2016, Randall and Jeff asked the Condo Association about the amount of the lien on the Unit. The Condo Association informed Randall and Jeff that they owed $8,154 for the lien. This amount reflected unpaid assessments against the Unit, finance charges, late fees, lien charges and attorney fees. The amount also included dock assessment fees for May and June 2016. While Randall questioned the amount, Jeff insisted that the entire amount was correct and owed by them. In July 2016, Randall and Jeff separately and voluntarily wrote checks in the amount of $4,077 to satisfy the lien. At that time, Angela and Jeff were still members of the Condo Association Board.
In November 2016, Randall and Jeff sold the Unit. Before selling the Unit, they obtained a “Release of All Liens” on the Unit from the Condo Association. They sold the Unit free of any liens or other encumbrances and made a profit.
Standard of Review
In this court-tried case, our review is governed by
Discussion and Decision
Points 1 and 2
In Points 1 and 2, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court misapplied the law by finding that the lien was valid and by including dock assessment and attorney fees in the amount of the lien. Those arguments are meritless because the trial court correctly applied the voluntary payment doctrine.
The voluntary payment doctrine “provides that a person who voluntarily pays money with full knowledge of all the facts in the case, and in the absence of fraud and duress, cannot recover it back, even though the payment is made without sufficient consideration and under protest.” Damon v. City of Kansas City, 419 S.W.3d 162, 192 (Mo. App. 2013). In Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009), our Supreme Court stated:
When evaluating the rationale behind this rule of law, courts emphasize that a person who, induced thereto solely by a mistake of law, has conferred a benefit upon another to satisfy in whole or in part an honest claim of the other to the performance given, is not entitled to restitution. The underlying reason for those requirements is that it would be inequitable to give such person the privilege of selecting his own time and convenience for litigation short of the bar of the statute of limitations, and thereby subject the payee to the uncertainties and casualties of human affairs likely to affect his means of defending the claim.
Id. at 726 (internal quotations and citations omitted; emphasis added).
None of the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs in Points 1 and 2 involve fraud or duress. Instead, the arguments are directed solely at the validity of the
Point 3
In Point 3, Plaintiffs argue the trial court‘s finding that the Condo Association did not misrepresent the lien amount is “not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence and misapplies the law.” Because this point does not comply with
Point 3 presents three different legal challenges to the judgment. A point relied on should contain only one issue, so multiple contentions about different issues should not be combined into a single point. See City of Joplin v. Wallace Bajjali Dev. Partners, L.P., 522 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Mo. App. 2017). The reason is each challenge involves a distinct analysis. A not-supported-by-substantial-evidence and an against-the-weight analysis are distinctly different. Smith v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 436 S.W.3d 700, 703-04 (Mo. App. 2014). Each of these, in turn, is different from a claim that the trial court erroneously declared or applied the law. Id. “[T]his means each Murphy ground is proved differently from the others and is subject to different principles and procedures of appellate review.” Id. at 704. A point that includes multiple issues is multifarious and preserves nothing for appellate review. State ex rel. Schmitt v. Schier Co., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 245, 253 n.15 (Mo. App. 2020).
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ contention that the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence fails because they had the burden of production and persuasion on their claim.
When the burden of proof is placed on a party for a claim that is denied, the trier of fact has the right to believe or disbelieve that party‘s uncontradicted or uncontroverted evidence. If the trier of fact does not believe the evidence of the party bearing the burden, it properly can find for the other party. Generally, the party not having the burden of proof on an issue need not offer any evidence concerning it. Consequently, substantial evidence supporting a judgment against the party with the burden of proof is not required or necessary.
Adoption of K.M.W., 516 S.W.3d 375, 382 (Mo. App. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs’ contention that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence is governed by Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2010):
[A]n against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge requires completion of four sequential steps:
(1) identify a challenged factual proposition, the existence of which is necessary to sustain the judgment;
(2) identify all of the favorable evidence in the record supporting the existence of that proposition;
(3) identify the evidence in the record contrary to the belief of that proposition, resolving all conflicts in testimony in accordance with the trial court‘s credibility
determinations, whether explicit or implicit; and, (4) demonstrate why the favorable evidence, along with the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, is so lacking in probative value, when considered in the context of the totality of the evidence, that it fails to induce belief in that proposition.
Id. at 187. Plaintiffs have not followed these mandatory requirements because they have not identified the favorable evidence supporting the trial court‘s finding or acknowledged the trial court‘s decisions about the credibility of the evidence presented. Instead, Plaintiffs have only cited the evidence favorable to their position. “Failure to follow the applicable framework means the appellant‘s argument is analytically useless and provides no support for his or her challenge.” In re Marriage of Adams, 414 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Mo. App. 2013). For all of these reasons, Point 3 is denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JEFFREY W. BATES, C.J. - OPINION AUTHOR
DON E. BURRELL, J. - CONCUR
MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. - CONCUR