Anderson v. Meglemre

• Decision Date: 27 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: 738 S.W.2d 931
• Parties: Robert J. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Robert W. MEGLEMRE, III, Defendant, and Arvid Zuber, Bert Jacob and Robert Rosenwald, Respondents, and Jerold A. Bressel, Respondent. 38876.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 931

738 S.W.2d 931

Robert J. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Robert W. MEGLEMRE, III, Defendant, and Arvid Zuber, Bert Jacob and Robert Rosenwald, Respondents,

and

Jerold A. Bressel, Respondent.

No. WD 38876.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District.

Oct. 27, 1987.

Dennis J.C. Owens, Kansas City, for appellant.

William A. Lynch, Katharine Bunn, Kansas City, for respondents.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and SHANGLER and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

LOWENSTEIN, Judge.

Appellant Robert J. Anderson invested in a paneling company being organized by an investment partnership which included as members Robert J. Meglemre, Jerold A. Bressel, and Eddie R. Jacobs. Meglemre and Bressel were partners with Robert E. Rosenwald, Bert H. Jacob, and Arvid v. Zuber in the law firm of Rosenwald, Jacob, Bressel, Jacob & Meglemre. The paneling venture was in deep financial trouble when Anderson paid his money and was terminated before production commenced.

Anderson's suit included counts against the Rosenwald law partnership for legal malpractice. His petition included various other counts directed against other members of the investment partnership. The legal malpractice count, which forms the controversy in this appeal, alleged the five were attorneys and members of a law firm partnership that was counsel for the plaintiff "in the proposed business transaction described above and for some time prior to the occurrence of the transaction." The allegations were that various duties of legal representation to Anderson were breached by actions of Meglemre and Bressel.

Before trial, Rosenwald, Jacob, and Zuber moved for summary judgment, stating that they were not counsel for Anderson in the proposed transaction, that they never gave Anderson legal advice in the transaction, that no attorney-client relationship existed with regard to Anderson's investment, and that they were not Anderson's attorneys as a matter of law. In support of their motion, Rosenwald, Jacob, and Zuber provided excerpts from the deposition testimony of various parties to show Meglemre left the law firm prior to soliciting Anderson's participation in the business transaction, and Anderson was never billed by their law firm for services pertaining to the transaction because no services were provided. Rosenwald, Jacob, and Zuber also contended that Anderson had not formally alleged any vicarious or secondary liability to the firm or the individual attorneys based on any acts or omissions of Bressel or Meglemre.

Anderson's suggestions opposing the motion for summary judgment identified nothing in the record to refute the evidence. No affidavits or sworn testimony accompanied Anderson's suggestions. Instead, the suggestions consisted of opinions and assertions concerning the law regarding summary judgment in Missouri and the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Anderson's assertions as to factual matters were not supported with references to evidence in either the discovery record or affidavits.

Rosenwald, Jacob, and Zuber's motion for summary judgment, which included portions of Anderson's deposition was granted by the trial court. At the trial on the other counts the jury found in favor of Anderson against Meglemre for fraud and legal malpractice, and in favor of Bressel against Anderson for legal malpractice. Anderson's appeal covers only the granting of summary judgment in favor of Rosenwald, Jacob and Zuber.

Summary judgment in Missouri...