Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Michael D. Bauer v. Ronald M. Bowes
Date: 10-18-2011
Case Number: WD71479
Judge: Mark D. Pfeiffer
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cass County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Michael D. Bauer, doing business as Bauer Development Co. ("Bauerâ€), appeals from the Circuit Court of Cass County"s ("trial courtâ€) denial of his Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ("Motion for JNOVâ€)1 following the trial court"s entry of judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of Ronald M. Bowes, Susan L. Bowes, and Millicent M. Bowes, the defendant guarantors (collectively, "the Guarantorsâ€). Respondents have filed a Motion to Dismiss Bauer"s appeal, asserting that it is untimely and this court lacks jurisdiction accordingly.2 For reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss Bauer"s appeal is denied and the judgment below is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background3
On November 1, 1993, Bauer, as lessor, and Belton Food Center, Inc. ("BFCIâ€), as lessee,4 entered into a long-term commercial lease agreement ("the Leaseâ€). The Guarantors each executed a personal guaranty guaranteeing the obligations of BFCI under the terms of the Lease. On May 7, 2001, BFCI received a letter from Bauer terminating the Lease.
Specifically, the termination letter stated, in pertinent part: "At this time, we consider you a tenant at will from month to month, thus the necessity of a new lease.†(Emphasis added.) The Guarantors thus argued that any obligations under a personal guaranty guaranteeing obligations under the lease also terminated as of May 7, 2001. BFCI vacated the premises on July 31, 2001.
On August 10, 2001, Bauer filed suit against BFCI for damages and against the Guarantors to guarantee payment for any such damages. Among other allegations, Bauer claimed that – prior to vacating the premises – BFCI removed property from the leased premises that belonged to Bauer, such as cooler and refrigerator doors, door frames, sinks, faucet knobs, cabinets, parts of the floor, conduit, supply and PVC pipes, ventilation flues, border walls, and a generator. Bauer further alleged that – prior to vacating the premises – BFCI damaged the leased premises by, among other things (a) disengaging and damaging the fire alarm system; (b) cutting, ripping out and leaving electrical, gas, water and other wires, lines and items exposed and damaged; and (c) removing and destroying electrical disconnect and switch boxes. Given that the Lease was terminated by Bauer on May 7, 2001, and BFCI was – by Bauer"s insistence – nothing more than a tenant at will from May 8, 2001, through July 31, 2001, there was conflicting evidence at trial about whether the alleged damages claimed by Bauer against BFCI were related to damages arising under the Lease (i.e. damages sustained on or before May 7, 2001) or the time frame of BFCI"s at will tenancy (i.e. damages between May 8, 2001, through July 31, 2001) or both. Similarly, then, there was conflicting evidence about whether the damages claimed by Bauer were covered by the personal guaranty of the Guarantors.
The case proceeded to trial, and the jury rendered four verdicts: On Verdict A, Bauer"s claim against BFCI, the jury found in favor of Bauer in the amount of $41,195.31; on Verdict B, Bauer"s claim against Ronald M. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Ronald M. Bowes; on Verdict C, Bauer"s claim against Susan L. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Susan L. Bowes; on Verdict D, Bauer"s claim against Millicent M. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Millicent M. Bowes. The trial court"s Judgment was filed June 19, 2009. Bauer timely filed his Motion for JNOV on July 20, 2009.5
The trial court dismissed the motion on August 30, 2009, without explanation. Bauer timely filed his notice of appeal on September 9, 2009. Standard of Review "„The standard of review for the denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is essentially the same as review of the denial of a motion for directed verdict."†Kline v. City of Kansas City, 334 S.W.3d 632, 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (quoting All Am. Painting, LLC v. Fin. Solutions & Assocs., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo. banc 2010)). "„Parties bearing the burden of proof generally are not entitled to a directed verdict."†Id. (quoting All Am. Painting, LLC, 315 S.W.3d at 723).
Analysis
In Bauer"s sole point relied on, Bauer argues that he presented substantial evidence of a "submissible†breach of guaranty case and, thus, the trial court erred in denying his motion for JNOV. Bauer misunderstands our standard of review on appeal. Bauer cites JNOV case law in which the plaintiff and not the defendant prevailed at trial (on the complained-of verdict or verdicts). In that instance, this court"s task in reviewing the denial of the defendant's motion for JNOV is simply to review the record to ascertain whether the plaintiff made a submissible case predicated upon legal and substantial evidence. Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 456 (Mo. banc 2006); Fletcher v. Kansas City Center, LLC, 296 S.W.3d 474, 476 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). But where, as here, the defendant is the prevailing party and the plaintiff has sought JNOV relief, the issue is not one of "submissibility.†Instead, as we have recently stated in Kline v. City of Kansas City, the standard of review for the denial of the plaintiff's motion for JNOV is no different than a denial of a motion for directed verdict and "parties bearing the burden of proof generally are not entitled to a directed verdict.†334 S.W.3d at 649. "„[A] directed verdict is not given in favor of the party having the burden of proof no matter how overwhelming that party"s evidence may be or how minuscule the other party"s evidence may be . . . ."†Id. (quoting Brandt v. Pelican, 856 S.W.2d 658, 664 (Mo. banc 1993)). "„This is in recognition of the fact that the defendant, who has the benefit of the burden of proof, is entitled to try the case with no evidence at all and to rely solely upon the jury disbelieving the plaintiff"s evidence."†Id. (quoting Brandt, 856 S.W.2d at 664-65). "„This strategy may result in a loss for the defendant, but it will not be on a directed verdict; the defendant is entitled to have the case go to the jury."†Id. (quoting Brandt, 856 S.W.2d at 665).
Thus, in the present case, whether Bauer – the plaintiff – made a "submissible case†for breach of guaranty against the Guarantors – the defendants – is irrelevant to whether the trial court should have granted Bauer"s Motion for JNOV. As plaintiff, Bauer bore the burden of proof of proving the elements of breach of guaranty by the Guarantors and the jury was entitled to disbelieve Bauer"s evidence in support of his case in chief. Likewise, the jury was entitled to believe that any of Bauer"s claimed "guaranty damages†were sustained after Bauer had terminated the Lease and outside the contractual time frame of any personal guaranty executed by any of the Guarantors. Either way, Bauer was not entitled to a directed verdict or JNOV. The trial court did not commit error. Point denied. Conclusion Respondents" motion to dismiss is denied.
* * *
See: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=50050
Factual and Procedural Background3
On November 1, 1993, Bauer, as lessor, and Belton Food Center, Inc. ("BFCIâ€), as lessee,4 entered into a long-term commercial lease agreement ("the Leaseâ€). The Guarantors each executed a personal guaranty guaranteeing the obligations of BFCI under the terms of the Lease. On May 7, 2001, BFCI received a letter from Bauer terminating the Lease.
Specifically, the termination letter stated, in pertinent part: "At this time, we consider you a tenant at will from month to month, thus the necessity of a new lease.†(Emphasis added.) The Guarantors thus argued that any obligations under a personal guaranty guaranteeing obligations under the lease also terminated as of May 7, 2001. BFCI vacated the premises on July 31, 2001.
On August 10, 2001, Bauer filed suit against BFCI for damages and against the Guarantors to guarantee payment for any such damages. Among other allegations, Bauer claimed that – prior to vacating the premises – BFCI removed property from the leased premises that belonged to Bauer, such as cooler and refrigerator doors, door frames, sinks, faucet knobs, cabinets, parts of the floor, conduit, supply and PVC pipes, ventilation flues, border walls, and a generator. Bauer further alleged that – prior to vacating the premises – BFCI damaged the leased premises by, among other things (a) disengaging and damaging the fire alarm system; (b) cutting, ripping out and leaving electrical, gas, water and other wires, lines and items exposed and damaged; and (c) removing and destroying electrical disconnect and switch boxes. Given that the Lease was terminated by Bauer on May 7, 2001, and BFCI was – by Bauer"s insistence – nothing more than a tenant at will from May 8, 2001, through July 31, 2001, there was conflicting evidence at trial about whether the alleged damages claimed by Bauer against BFCI were related to damages arising under the Lease (i.e. damages sustained on or before May 7, 2001) or the time frame of BFCI"s at will tenancy (i.e. damages between May 8, 2001, through July 31, 2001) or both. Similarly, then, there was conflicting evidence about whether the damages claimed by Bauer were covered by the personal guaranty of the Guarantors.
The case proceeded to trial, and the jury rendered four verdicts: On Verdict A, Bauer"s claim against BFCI, the jury found in favor of Bauer in the amount of $41,195.31; on Verdict B, Bauer"s claim against Ronald M. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Ronald M. Bowes; on Verdict C, Bauer"s claim against Susan L. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Susan L. Bowes; on Verdict D, Bauer"s claim against Millicent M. Bowes for breach of Guaranty, the jury found in favor of Millicent M. Bowes. The trial court"s Judgment was filed June 19, 2009. Bauer timely filed his Motion for JNOV on July 20, 2009.5
The trial court dismissed the motion on August 30, 2009, without explanation. Bauer timely filed his notice of appeal on September 9, 2009. Standard of Review "„The standard of review for the denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is essentially the same as review of the denial of a motion for directed verdict."†Kline v. City of Kansas City, 334 S.W.3d 632, 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (quoting All Am. Painting, LLC v. Fin. Solutions & Assocs., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Mo. banc 2010)). "„Parties bearing the burden of proof generally are not entitled to a directed verdict."†Id. (quoting All Am. Painting, LLC, 315 S.W.3d at 723).
Analysis
In Bauer"s sole point relied on, Bauer argues that he presented substantial evidence of a "submissible†breach of guaranty case and, thus, the trial court erred in denying his motion for JNOV. Bauer misunderstands our standard of review on appeal. Bauer cites JNOV case law in which the plaintiff and not the defendant prevailed at trial (on the complained-of verdict or verdicts). In that instance, this court"s task in reviewing the denial of the defendant's motion for JNOV is simply to review the record to ascertain whether the plaintiff made a submissible case predicated upon legal and substantial evidence. Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 456 (Mo. banc 2006); Fletcher v. Kansas City Center, LLC, 296 S.W.3d 474, 476 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). But where, as here, the defendant is the prevailing party and the plaintiff has sought JNOV relief, the issue is not one of "submissibility.†Instead, as we have recently stated in Kline v. City of Kansas City, the standard of review for the denial of the plaintiff's motion for JNOV is no different than a denial of a motion for directed verdict and "parties bearing the burden of proof generally are not entitled to a directed verdict.†334 S.W.3d at 649. "„[A] directed verdict is not given in favor of the party having the burden of proof no matter how overwhelming that party"s evidence may be or how minuscule the other party"s evidence may be . . . ."†Id. (quoting Brandt v. Pelican, 856 S.W.2d 658, 664 (Mo. banc 1993)). "„This is in recognition of the fact that the defendant, who has the benefit of the burden of proof, is entitled to try the case with no evidence at all and to rely solely upon the jury disbelieving the plaintiff"s evidence."†Id. (quoting Brandt, 856 S.W.2d at 664-65). "„This strategy may result in a loss for the defendant, but it will not be on a directed verdict; the defendant is entitled to have the case go to the jury."†Id. (quoting Brandt, 856 S.W.2d at 665).
Thus, in the present case, whether Bauer – the plaintiff – made a "submissible case†for breach of guaranty against the Guarantors – the defendants – is irrelevant to whether the trial court should have granted Bauer"s Motion for JNOV. As plaintiff, Bauer bore the burden of proof of proving the elements of breach of guaranty by the Guarantors and the jury was entitled to disbelieve Bauer"s evidence in support of his case in chief. Likewise, the jury was entitled to believe that any of Bauer"s claimed "guaranty damages†were sustained after Bauer had terminated the Lease and outside the contractual time frame of any personal guaranty executed by any of the Guarantors. Either way, Bauer was not entitled to a directed verdict or JNOV. The trial court did not commit error. Point denied. Conclusion Respondents" motion to dismiss is denied.
* * *
See: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=50050
Outcome:
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Michael D. Bauer v. Ronald M. Bowes?
The outcome was: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Which court heard Michael D. Bauer v. Ronald M. Bowes?
This case was heard in Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cass County, MO. The presiding judge was Mark D. Pfeiffer.
When was Michael D. Bauer v. Ronald M. Bowes decided?
This case was decided on October 18, 2011.