Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc.

15 Citing cases

  1. Trimble v. Pracna

    Nos. 25555 and 25563 (Mo. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2004)

    I am not persuaded Trimble was precluded from splitting her claim into one for breach of contract and one for fraud, provided she did not seek nor receive double recovery for the same item of damage. In Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.App. 1984), plaintiffs alleged the loan-broker defendant had breached a contract to provide real estate construction loan financing. The following from Hall demonstrates its factual similarity to this case and, in my view, supports my departure from the principal opinion:

  2. Mccarthy Bldg. Companies v. St. Louis

    81 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment and noting that a "satisfaction clause" in a contract is subject to a reasonable person standard

    This is a "satisfaction" clause. See Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 385 (Mo.App. 1984). This subsection of the contract does not contain any standard from which the City was to be adjudged should it be dissatisfied.

  3. Haas v. Town & Country Mortgage Co.

    886 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    In Haas, the plaintiffs alleged intentional interference after they were denied credit by five credit card companies due to the improper reporting of derogatory information by the defendant.

    A general debt will not give rise to a cause of action in conversion. Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Mo.App. 1984). Generally, an action for conversion lies only for a specific chattel which has been wrongfully converted, thus a claim for money may not be asserted in conversion.

  4. Express Scripts, Inc. v. Walgreen Co.

    Case No. 4:08cv1915 TCM (E.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    (See Id. ¶ 18.) Walgreen does not allege that specific funds were placed in the custody of Express Scripts for a specific purpose and then diverted by Express Scripts for its own use. Cf.Perez v.Boatmen's Nat'l Bank of St. Louis, 788 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that an exception to the general rule that conversion does not lie for taking of money exists "when plaintiff places funds in the custody of defendant for a specific purpose and defendant diverts them to a different purpose");accordHall v. W.L. Bradley Invs., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). Cf. alsoKnight, 647 S.W.2d at 816-17 (referring to the exception as "narrow").

  5. Premium Financing Specialists, Inc. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co.

    136 F.R.D. 175 (W.D. Mo. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    Although Missouri courts generally prohibit the recovery of a general debt under a conversion theory, State ex rel. Ranni Associates v. Hartenbach, 742 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. banc 1987), an exception is recognized when funds are delivered into the hands of another for a specific application and are later misappropriated and diverted to a different purpose. Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.App.1984). In its original complaint plaintiff did not allege that it placed funds into defendant's hands to be specifically applied as insurance premiums on behalf of the insured.

  6. Pointe Dev. v. Enterprise Bank Trust

    316 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    The provision obviously includes no words of limitation typically associated with express conditions subsequent. Nor does the provision expressly or clearly articulate that the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event will terminate Enterprise's duty to fund the construction loan. Cf. Deutsch v. Boatmen's Nat'l Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 991 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (contingent sale contract contained express language that sale is contingent and if condition is not satisfied that the contract is null and void); Hall v. W.L. Brady Invs., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.App. W.D. 1984) (contingent real estate construction loan commitment expressly provided for conditions for several installments of the loan, the initial installment conditioned on the satisfactory completion of improvements). Moreover, even if the proffered provision could be construed to imply a condition subsequent, there was no evidence to suggest the condition was not satisfied by Pointe.

  7. Estate of Boatright

    88 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)

    Also, misappropriated funds placed in the custody of another for a definite purpose may be subject to a suit for conversion. Reason, 793 S.W.2d at 474; seeBoyd v. Wimes, 664 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo.App. 1984); see alsoHall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Mo.App. 1984). In Walker v. Hanke, supra, Mr. Walker moved into the household of his daughter and her husband and subsequently granted his daughter a power of attorney to handle his business affairs.

  8. Mueller v. Bauer

    54 S.W.3d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    Discussing the required elements for establishing a prima facie case of medical malpractice: an act or omission of the defendant failed to meet the requisite medical standard of care; the act or omission was performed negligently; and the act or omission caused the plaintiffs injury; analyzing a challenge to the causation evidence presented in that case

    Gaddy, 259 S.W.2d at 849; Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Mo.App. 1995); State ex rel. Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm'n v. Modern Tractor Supply Co., 839 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Mo.App. 1992). If an expert witness is called, the facts in evidence, coupled with those available to the witness from the witness's own investigation, must be sufficient to take the expert testimony out of the realm of guesswork. Hall v. W.L. Brady Investments, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 388 (Mo.App. 1984). In this case, the lack of documentation rendered the expert's opinion speculative.

  9. McCrary v. Truman Medical Center, Inc.

    943 S.W.2d 695 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 10 times

    The underlying controversy pertains to the provision of health care services and is identical, for all intents and purposes, to McCrary I. All claims arising out of the same subject matter should be determined in one action. Hall v. W. L. Brady Invs. Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. App. 1984). Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not decide the other issues raised.

  10. Blando v. Reid

    886 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    In Blando we stated that the "just and proper" language "is more than mere custom" and may allow an equity court "to enter relief required to resolve the issues raised by the allegations in the cause pleaded."

    An exception to this rule exists when plaintiff places funds in the custody of defendant for a specific purpose and defendant diverts them to a different purpose. Hall v. W.L. Brady Inv., Inc., 684 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Mo.App. 1984). La Cuticle, Inc. did not convert Ms. Blando's money.