Calvary Heights Baptist Temple v. Molasky, 51915
| Decision Date | 23 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 51915,51915 |
| Citation | 733 S.W.2d 774 |
| Parties | CALVARY HEIGHTS BAPTIST TEMPLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen MOLASKY, Racing Service Corporation, Troy Realo Land Management Company, Allen Molasky Trust, Melanjo Investments, Inc., Marti Ellen Rose, Gloria Molasky, Magnum Industries, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James B. Herd, Deeba, DeStefano, Sauter & Herd, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Howard Wittner, David Sosne, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiff, Calvary Heights Baptist Temple, brought an action for specific performance, or in the alternative, damages for fraud against defendants, Allen Molasky, Racing Service Corporation, Troy Realo Land Management Company, Allen Molasky Trust, Melanjo Investments, Inc., Marti Ellen Rose, Gloria Molasky, and Magnum Industries, Inc. In a court tried case, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants after making findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff appeals from that judgment.
The facts of this case are extensive and complex. The seminal issue, however, presents a question of fact; i.e., was there a specific oral agreement made by Mark Molasky, defendants' agent, to reconvey land to plaintiff. On that point plaintiff's witnesses were equivocal. Defendants denied such an agreement. The trial court held that "although there were conversations about a possible reconveyance of some land to plaintiff, said discussions were general, non-specific and do not establish that any defendants entered into any definite and specific agreement to reconvey specific property ... there is no evidence that an actual and definite oral agreement was made."
Faced with a conflict in the evidence, it is the prerogative of the trial court to believe defendants and accept their testimony as true. Rinderknecht v. Caulfield, 716 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Mo.App.1986). We defer to the wide discretion accorded the trial court even if there is evidence which would support a different conclusion. Ware v. Ware, 647 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Mo.App.1983). Since we affirm the trial court's finding that there was no oral agreement, it is unnecessary to consider plaintiff's arguments relating to the Statute of Frauds or the legal efficacy of any subsequent releases. Plaintiff's first point is denied.
Plaintiff's second point challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's findings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwards
...would support a different conclusion. Linnenbrink v. First Nat. Bank, 839 S.W.2d 618, 621 (Mo.App.1992); Calvary Heights Baptist Temple v. Molasky, 733 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Mo.App.1987). For these reasons, we uphold the trial court's determination that Superior's plunge milling process is uniqu......
-
United Siding Supply, Inc. v. Residential Imp. Services, Inc.
...the trial court regarding questions of fact even if there is evidence to support a different conclusion. Calvary Heights Baptist Temple v. Molasky, 733 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Mo.App.1987). The court will also grant deference to the trial court's findings regarding witness credibility. T.B.G., 772......
-
Moore v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...accorded wide discretion even if there is evidence in the record which would support a different result. Calvary Heights Baptist Temple v. Molasky, 733 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Mo.App.1987). Thurmond v. Director of Revenue, 759 S.W.2d 898, 899 Appellant was driving an automobile that ran off a road......
-
Thurmond v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 54778
...accorded wide discretion even if there is evidence in the record which would support a different result. Calvary Heights Baptist Temple v. Molasky, 733 S.W.2d 774, 775 (Mo.App.1987). In Thurman, 745 S.W.2d at 262, our court stated that Director had met its burden of proving that there was p......