Bowles v. All Counties Investment Corp.
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Writing for the Court | Robert S. Barney |
Citation | 46 S.W.3d 636 |
Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) Joe Wayne Bowles, et al., Respondents, v. All Counties Investment Corp., et al., Appellants. 23725 0 |
Decision Date | 04 June 2001 |
v.
All Counties Investment Corp., et al., Appellants.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. Mark E. Fitzsimmons
Counsel for Appellant: Daniel H. Miller
Counsel for Respondent: Steven E. Marsh
Opinion Summary: None
Prewitt and Rahmeyer, JJ., concur.
Robert S. Barney, Chief Judge
Appellants, All Counties Investment Corporation, ("the Corporation") and Arlie D. Nole, ("Nole") appeal from a judgment awarding Respondents, Joe Wayne Bowles and Gloria Dean Bowles, ("Respondents" and "Bowles") the sum of $3,500.00 arising from a real estate sales transaction involving a parcel of land in Dade County ("the property"). Appellants submit two points relied on. Appellants assert that the trial court erred when it incorrectly based its judgment on the grounds of fraud, and when it ruled for Respondents because their pleadings and proof were insufficient to establish fraud.
"The standard of review in a court-tried case is governed by the principles enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976)." Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Henson, 34 S.W.3d 448, 450 (Mo.App. 2001). "We must affirm the trial court's judgment unless [there is] no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or applies the law." Id.; Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32. "The trial court's judgment is presumed valid and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate its incorrectness." Schaefer v. Rivers, 965 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Mo.App. 1998). "Under Rule 84.13(d), formerly Rule 73.01(c), we give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Kerr v. Louderback, 35 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo.App. 2001). "Trial judges are better able than appellate courts to assess the credibility of the parties and other intangibles that are not completely revealed by the record on appeal." Id. "All fact issues upon which no findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached." Schaefer, 965 S.W.2d at 956; see Rule 84.13(d), Missouri Court Rules (2000); Nations Bank, N.A. v. Follis, 15 S.W.3d 421, 422, n.l (Mo.App. 2000).
Viewed from the perspective of the foregoing legal precepts, the evidence shows that the Corporation is a bail bonding entity and Nole is its president. The Corporation received a quitclaim deed in April 1998 as "collateral" for a note taken as payment of a bond premium. At that time the land was encumbered by a prior, first mortgage securing an indebtedness of between $9,000.00 to $10,000.00. On January 27, 1999, Bowles contacted Nole concerning purchasing the land in question and Nole agreed to sell the property to Bowles for $3,500.00. Both parties were aware of and discussed the first mortgage foreclosure sale on the property that was to take place the following day, January 28, 1999.1 Nole assured Bowles that the forthcoming foreclosure sale "would be a bogus sale." In his testimony at trial, Bowles repeated that Nole told him that "it [the foreclosure sale] wouldn't go through. He said it was just a bogus sale . . . You've got no problem. Go record it before 2:00, and that's just the process of it. If it does, anything happens, I'll give you your money back." The next day, Bowles delivered Nole a cashier's check for $3,500.00 and Nole gave Bowles a quitclaim deed to the land. Bowles recorded the quitclaim deed from the Corporation prior to 2:00 p.m. on the 28th day of January 1999. Later that afternoon, however, the foreclosure sale in fact took place and the property was sold, apparently to the mortgagee. Nole refused to return the $3,500.00. Nole testified that "I basically told...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Havner, WD 61014.
...awarding summary judgment to Mathew is reversed. Because there is no material issue of fact for the trial court to resolve, cf. Hoffman, 46 S.W.3d at 636, and Liberty Mutual is entitled to summary judgment, the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment in favor......
-
Sleepy Hollow Ranch LLC v. Robinson, s. SD 30657
...judgment is presumed valid and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate its incorrectness.’ ” Bowles v. All Counties Inv. Corp., 46 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting Schaefer v. Rivers, 965 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Mo.App.1998)). Appellants' first two points relied on are governed by the ......
-
Reading v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Case No. 2:11CV0045 JCH
...by representations concerning the law or permitted to say he has been misled.'" (Reply, p. 9 (quoting Bowles v. All Counties Inv. Corp., 46 S.W.3d 636, 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)). In the instant matter, the Court finds that the representation allegedly made by Wisniewski to Plaintiffs that Gi......
-
State Resources v. Lawyers Title Ins., 27595.
...of the parties and other intangibles that are not completely revealed by the record on appeal.'" Bowles v. All Counties Inv. Corp., 46 S.W.3d 636, 638-39 (Mo.App. 2001) (quoting Kerr v. Louderback, 35 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Mo.App.2001)). Accordingly, this Court accepts "`as true the evidence and......