Stanfield v. Grove

5 Citing cases

  1. Midwest Asbestos Abatement Corp. v. Brooks

    90 S.W.3d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 11 times
    In Midwest Asbestos Abatement Corp. v. Brooks, 90 S.W.3d 480 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002), the appellate court did say concerning the Missouri Public Prompt Pay Act, "[t]he trial court may award attorney's fees only if the party prevails on the penalty interest issue."

    Where the trial court enters judgment without preparing findings of fact or conclusions of law, we will credit the facts favorable to the judgment and will affirm such judgment if it is supportable under any legal theory. Stanfield v. Grove, 924 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). Having found evidence on which the trial court could have determined that the Commission "paid" DS for the Category 1 removal, we turn to the issue of whether DS withheld that payment from Midwest in good faith and with reasonable cause.

  2. J.R. Waymire Co. v. Antares Corp.

    975 S.W.2d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 22 times
    Excluding evidence of oral modification of written agreement to exclude entity as potential buyer of property in action seeking payment of commission after sale was made to that entity

    Exceptions to the general parol evidence rule, however, exist. In cases of fraud, accident, mistake, duress, or mental incapacity, evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements may be admissible. Stanfield v. Grove , 924 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo. App. 1996); W.E. Koehler Constr. Co., Inc. v. Medical Ctr. ofBlue Springs , 670 S.W.2d 558, 561-562 (Mo. App. 1984). Another example of an exception to the parol evidence rule exists in the Uniform Commercial Code.

  3. Merrell v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.

    Case No. 05-0735-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. Feb. 14, 2007)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, for instance, if the new contract violates the statute of frauds, a novation has not taken place. Stanfield v. Grove, 924 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996). The Record conclusively establishes a novation did not take place because there is no evidence the parties intended to extinguish the Agreement. Plaintiffs point to CPS' original treatment of the $8,000 and the Billing Notice indicating the next payment was due more than a year hence, but a jury could not conclude these pieces of evidence demonstrate CPS intended to extinguish its rights and protections afforded under the Agreement.

  4. Klinckman v. Pharris

    969 S.W.2d 769 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    Contracts for the sale of goods valued at more than five hundred dollars, as here, are required to be in writing to be enforceable. ยง 400.2-201(1), RSMo 1994; Stanfield v. Grove, 924 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo.App. 1996). Sellers concede that they agreed on two separate occasions to extend the closing date beyond the original date of June 15, 1995.

  5. Manard v. Williams

    952 S.W.2d 387 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that "`[a]n irregularity in the execution of a foreclosure sale must be substantial or result in a probable unfairness to suffice as a reason for setting aside a voidable trustee's deed'"

    When findings of fact and conclusions of law were not requested and none were entered, this Court will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is supported under any legal theory. Stanfield v. Grove, 924 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Mo.App. 1996). We examine both the evidence and the trial court's judgment with these precepts in mind.