Almat Builders & Remodeling, Inc. v. Midwest Lodging, LLC

• Decision Date: 08 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. ED 108784,ED 108784
• Citation: 615 S.W.3d 70
• Parties: ALMAT BUILDERS AND REMODELING, INC., Appellant, v. MIDWEST LODGING, LLC, and Montgomery Bank, N.A., and Shrinay Construction, LLC, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

615 S.W.3d 70

ALMAT BUILDERS AND REMODELING, INC., Appellant,

v.MIDWEST LODGING, LLC, and Montgomery Bank, N.A., and Shrinay Construction, LLC, Respondents.

No. ED 108784

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

FILED: December 8, 2020

Vivek Puri, 422 Monroe Street, Jefferson City, MO. 65101, for appellant.

Steven M. Cockriel, 3660 S. Geyer Road, Suite 320, St. Louis, MO. 63127-1223, for respondent.

Shrinay Construction, Acting Pro Se, 9660 Olive Blvd, Ste. 690, St. Louis, MO. 63132, for respondent.

Angela T. Quigless, P.J.

Plaintiff Almat Builders and Remodeling, Inc. (Almat), appeals from the circuit court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Midwest Lodging, LLC, and Montgomery Bank, N.A. (Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank, respectively), in this action arising out of Almat's work on a hotel construction project. Almat asserted both an action to enforce a mechanics’ lien, and a quantum meruit action to recover amounts allegedly due Almat for its work on the project. We hold that Almat's mechanics’ lien statement is not a just and true account, and thus the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank on Almat's mechanics’ lien action. We therefore affirm the circuit court's judgment as to that count. We reach a different result regarding the quantum meruit action, however. To the extent the circuit court relied on the agency and contractual grounds advanced by Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank in granting summary judgment on Almat's quantum meruit claim, the circuit court erred. Further, the factual assertions contained in the summary-judgment record are insufficient to entitle Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank to summary judgment. We therefore reverse the circuit court's judgment as to Almat's quantum meruit count and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

Midwest Lodging contracted with general contractor Shrinay Construction, LLC, to build a hotel on property owned by Midwest Lodging. Shrinay in turn contracted with Almat to furnish and install drywall for the project. Almat worked on the project through November 6, 2017. Almat then left the project without completing all of its work. Midwest Lodging eventually terminated its contract with Shrinay. Almat contended it was owed for work performed under the contract, for requested work performed outside the scope of the contract, and for costs associated with lodging. Almat ultimately filed an action against Shrinay, Midwest Lodging, and Montgomery Bank, seeking recovery of amounts allegedly due.¹ Almat advanced four counts, only two of which are now at issue: its action to enforce a mechanics’ lien, and its action for quantum meruit.²

Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank jointly moved for summary judgment.³ As to Almat's action to enforce its mechanics’ lien, Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank asserted a right to summary judgment on grounds that Almat had waived its right to assert a mechanics’ lien for its work on the project. Alternatively, Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank asserted that Almat's mechanics’ lien was void and unenforceable because Almat's mechanics’ lien statement failed to provide a just and true account of amounts due Almat "after all just credits have been given," as required by Section 429.080. As to Almat's breach-of-contract and quantum meruit claims, Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank asserted a right to summary judgment on these two counts because Shrinay was not an authorized agent of Midwest Lodging, and Midwest Lodging did not enter into a contract with Almat. By agreement of the parties, the summary-judgment motion was submitted to the circuit court on the briefs and memoranda of counsel, without argument. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank, on both counts, without providing any reasons for its decision. Almat now appeals, contending that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgments on both counts.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp. , 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). The criteria on appeal for determining the propriety of summary judgment are no different from those which should be employed by the circuit court to determine the propriety of sustaining the motion initially. Id. Thus, as the circuit court's judgment is founded on the record submitted and the law, an appellate court need not defer to the circuit court's order granting summary judgment. Id. We review the summary-judgment record "in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered." Id. "Facts set forth by affidavit or otherwise in support of a party's motion are taken as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the summary-judgment motion." Id. "We accord the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record." Id.

This being said, our review is confined to the summary-judgment record.⁴ Cowgur v. Murphy , 587 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) ; Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth. v. Rail Switching Servs., Inc., 523 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017). Facts come into a summary-judgment record only via the numbered-paragraphs-and-responses framework set out in Rule 74.04(c).⁵ Id. ; Green v. Fotoohighiam , 606 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo. banc 2020) ; accord Davis v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 549 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). The circuit court "grants or denies summary judgment based on those facts established by the summary-judgment motion and responses thereto." Cowgur , 587 S.W.3d at 719 (internal quotation omitted); Green , 606 S.W.3d at 118. In turn, "our review is confined to the same facts and does not extend to the entire record...." Id. (internal quotation omitted); Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth. , 523 S.W.3d at 532. The right to summary judgment "boils down to certain facts, established per Rule 74.04(c), that legally guarantee one party's victory regardless of other facts or factual disputes. " Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth. , 523 S.W.3d at 533 (emphases in original).

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party has demonstrated, on the basis of facts as to which there is no genuine dispute, a right to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. , 854 S.W.2d at 377-78 ; Rule 74.04. A movant's right to judgment as a matter of law differs significantly depending upon whether that movant is a "claimant" or a "defending party."⁶ ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. , 854 S.W.2d at 381 ; Vantage Credit Union v. Chisholm , 447 S.W.3d 740, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). "Where a ‘defending party’ will not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party need not controvert each element of the non-movant's claim in order to establish a right to summary judgment." ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. , 854 S.W.2d at 381 (emphasis in original). Rather, as is relevant to the case at bar, a "defending party" may establish a right to judgment as a matter of law by showing facts that negate any one of the claimant's required proof elements.⁷ Id.

"The showing required of the non-movant in the face of a properly-pleaded summary-judgment motion is the same regardless of whether the non-movant is a claimant or defending party."

Vantage Credit Union , 447 S.W.3d at 745. Once the movant has made a prima facie showing of lack of genuine issue of material fact, and thereby entitlement to judgment as matter of law, the burden shifts to the non-movant, to show that one or more of the material facts shown by the movant to be above any genuine dispute is, in fact, genuinely disputed. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. , 854 S.W.2d at 381. "The non-movant never needs to establish a right to judgment as a matter of law; the non-movant need only show that there is a genuine dispute as to the facts underlying the movant's right to judgment." Id. at 381-82. "For purposes of Rule 74.04, a ‘genuine issue’ exists where the record contains competent materials that evidence two plausible, but contradictory, accounts of the essential facts." Id. at 382. "A ‘genuine issue’ is a dispute that is real, not merely argumentative, imaginary or frivolous." Id. "To put a fact in genuine dispute, the non-movant may not rely on a general denial, but, instead, must support that denial with specific references to the discovery, exhibits or affidavits that demonstrate the specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Cowgur , 587 S.W.3d at 720 ; Rule 74.04(c)(2).

Enforcement of Mechanics’ Lien

Almat sought to enforce a mechanics’ lien for material and labor provided to the hotel project. Midwest Lodging and Montgomery Bank moved for summary judgment, asserting that Almat's mechanics’ lien was void and unenforceable because Almat's mechanics’ lien statement failed to provide a just and true account of the amount due Almat.⁸

Relevant to this appeal, to make a prima facie showing of a right to summary judgment on a mechanics’ lien, Section 429.080 requires a lien claimant to file "a just and true account of the demand due him ... after all just credits have been given ..." "Filing a ‘just and true account’ is the very foundation of the right to maintain the suit and is a condition precedent to the right of any lien claimant to establish his lien." Bremer v. Mohr , 478 S.W.2d 14, 18 (Mo. App. 1972) ; Zundel v. Edge, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) ; Midwest Floor Co. v. Miceli Development Co. , 304 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ("a "just and true account" forms the basis of the right to maintain a suit to enforce a mechanics’ lien"). Though the mechanics’ lien law is remedial in nature, and should be liberally construed to benefit those it seeks to protect, the law also requires that a lien claimant substantially comply with the statute in order to avail himself of its benefits, and a substantial...