Cent. Parking Sys. of Mo., LLC v. Tucker Parking Holdings, LLC

Decision Date18 April 2017
Docket NumberNo. ED 104361,ED 104361
Citation519 S.W.3d 485
Parties CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF MISSOURI, LLC, Respondent, v. TUCKER PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC and Tucker Parking Equities, LLC, Appellants.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Mark E. Goodman, Amy L. Fehr, Capes, Sokol, Goodman & Sarachan, P.C., Clayton, MO, for Appellants.

Jan P. Miller, Booker T. Shaw, Brian A. Lamping, Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

Philip M. Hess, Chief Judge


Tucker Parking Holdings, LLC and Tucker Parking Equities, LLC (collectively "Tucker") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in favor of Central Parking System of Missouri, LLC ("Central"). This case arises out of a dispute between the parties over who is responsible for the expenses relating to the near-collapse of a parking garage owned by Tucker and operated and leased by Central. The trial court determined that Tucker was responsible for the expenses, and granted Central damages in the amount of $4,161,424.76 for costs Central paid to evacuate and stabilize the parking garage. We affirm.

Factual Background1

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, is as follows.2

In 1998, Central3 leased a multilevel parking garage located at 306–310 North Tucker Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri (the "Garage") from 310 North Tucker, LLC ("Predecessor"). The Garage was built in 1967, and was constructed using cast-in-place concrete slabs supported by a button-head post-tensioning ("PT") system. The button-head PT system design was commonly used during the time of the Garage's construction, but has since become obsolete.

Central entered into a Restated Lease with Predecessor in April 2000 (the "Lease"). The Lease provided that Central was solely responsible for maintenance and structural repairs to the Garage, but contained an exception for repairs necessitated by normal wear and tear. Specifically, Section 8(a) of the Lease stated that:

Tenant shall, throughout the term of this lease, maintain the Premises (and all structural components thereof)... in good order, condition and repair, and Tenant shall not commit or suffer any waste with respect thereto. Except as specifically set forth in this lease, Tenant shall promptly make all repairs, interior and exterior, structural and nonstructural, ordinary as well as extraordinary, foreseen as well as unforeseen, necessary to keep the Premises in good and lawful order and condition (normal wear and tear and damage from fire or other casualty excepted ) .... (Emphasis added).

In addition, Section 15(a), governing the expiration of the Lease, also included a wear and tear exception, requiring Central to surrender the Garage to Predecessor at the termination or expiration of the Lease "broom clean, in good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear and damage from casualty and fire excepted ...." The Lease also included an "as is" clause in Section 30, stating that:

[Central] has examined [the Garage] and is fully familiar with the physical condition thereof, and [Central] accepts the same "AS IS" on the Commencement Date. Except as expressly set forth to the contrary in this lease, [Central] assumes all risks, if any, resulting from any latent or patent defects in [the Garage] .... [Predecessor] made no representation or warranties in respect of the physical condition [of the Garage] ....

In 2007, Tucker purchased the Garage from Predecessor for $4,125,000. Tucker did not inspect the condition of the Garage's PT system when it purchased the Garage.

In March 2013, Tucker hired an engineering firm, Carl Walker, Inc. ("Carl Walker") to provide an appraisal of the Garage in order to determine repairs Central might be required to make prior to the Lease's expiration on March 31, 2015. In its report, Carl Walker determined that the Garage's concrete slabs showed signs of "widespread deterioration resulting from corrosion of the embedded reinforcing steel" and that there was approximately 21,500 square feet of delaminated concrete in the Garage. Carl Walker advised that additional testing was necessary to determine the condition of the PT system, and it recommended a budget of $2,470,000 for concrete repairs, exclusive of any repairs to the PT system that might be required. Tucker provided Central with a copy of the Carl Walker report shortly thereafter.

At approximately the same time, Central hired its own engineering firm, Walker Restoration Consultants ("Walker Restoration") to investigate the condition of the Garage's PT system. Walker Restoration's principal, Dan Moser, performed excavations at the Garage in order to visually inspect the PT system. Mr. Moser produced a report ("Moser 2013 Report") which estimated that 55% of the Garage's joist PT tendons were either broken or under partial tension. The Moser 2013 Report estimated a budget of $2,276,000 was necessary to repair the PT system. This put the combined estimate of repairs at approximately $4,800,000. Central did not disclose the full Moser 2013 Report to Tucker, despite Tucker's repeated requests.

In June 2013, Central offered to pay Tucker $1,483,500 in exchange for a release from its obligations under the Lease to repair the Garage. Tucker rejected this offer, as well as Central's later offer in 2014 to enter into a new five year lease that would shift the obligations of structural maintenance and repair onto Tucker.

In March 2014, Central selected Tarlton Corporation ("Tarlton") to perform repairs on the Garage, including PT system repairs, at a bid price of $2,892,000. On July 3, 2014, while in the beginning stages of repairing the Garage, Tarlton notified Walker Restoration that some of the PT floor joists that supported the Garage had cracks. Tarlton also informed Walker Restoration that it heard a series of small pops or explosions that it believed indicated that the joist PT systems were fracturing. Upon this information, Walker Restoration determined that the joists were at risk of collapsing and had to be repaired, which required the Garage to be closed to car traffic. A few days later, additional cracking in the joists was observed and, on Walker Restoration's recommendation, Central completely evacuated4 the Garage and closed it off from the public. Over the following weeks, Tarlton, at Central's request, began installing a shoring system in the Garage that was composed of thousands of wood and metal support columns. The shoring system prevented the Garage from collapsing and provided structural support for Tarlton to make repairs to the PT system. Central notified Tucker of the emergency and kept Tucker informed of its plan to stabilize and repair the Garage.

In September 2014, Walker Restoration recommended to Central that the damage to the PT system was so extensive that a steel beam support system was required to be installed throughout the Garage. Walker Restoration estimated that installing such a system could cost $16,080,000 or more. On September 5, 2014, Central represented to Tucker that it would be moving forward with the steel beam repair plan.

In December 2014, both Tucker's engineers and Central's engineers conducted destructive testing at the Garage to investigate the PT system and determine the cause of its failure.5 Following the tests, Central expressed to Tucker that it did not think it was responsible for the PT system repairs under the Lease because its engineers had concluded that the cause of the PT failure was due to ordinary wear and tear.

On March 9, 2015, Central and Tucker both filed suit against each other. In its petition, Central sought a declaration that it was not responsible under the Lease for the PT system repairs. Central also filed claims against Tucker for breach of lease, and "unjust enrichment/quantum meruit." Tucker, in its petition, sought a declaration that Central was responsible for the PT system repairs, and filed claims against Central for breach of lease, waste, and negligence. The trial court later consolidated the actions.

On March 25, 2015, Tucker filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In its motion, Tucker argued that the costs of the shoring system constituted "structural repairs" that fell within Central's obligations under the Lease. Accordingly, Tucker argued, Central was responsible for continuing to maintain the shoring system and pay the ongoing expenses associated with it. The following day, the trial court heard oral argument on Tucker's motion and granted it in part, enjoining Central and Tarlton from removing or altering the shoring system. The trial court did not rule on which party was responsible for paying the costs of the shoring system.

On March 31, 2015, the Lease term ended and Central vacated the Garage. However, the shoring system was kept in place and monitored by Tarlton.

The parties agreed to bifurcate the case. In the first phase, the parties agreed to present evidence on Tucker's motion for preliminary injunction in order to determine both the cause of the PT system failure and which party was responsible for the expenses arising from the failure. In the second phase, the trial court was to conduct a damages hearing to determine the damages to be awarded to the party that prevailed in the first phase.

On July 28, 2015, as part of the first phase, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Tucker's motion for preliminary injunction. Following the hearing, the trial court issued its judgment on October 13, 2015, in which it determined that Tucker was responsible for the costs and expenses associated with the PT system failure because the failure occurred due to normal wear and tear. A summary of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law is provided below:

• The PT system failure constituted normal deterioration for a concrete parking structure built in 1967 using a button-head PT system.
• The button-head PT system construction joints were vulnerable to water

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • November 15, 2017
    ...plaintiff; and (3) that it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefit." Central Parking System of Missouri, LLC v. Tucker Parking Holdings, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 485, 498 (Mo. App. 2017).• New York (Count LIII) Under New York law, the "elements of a cause of action to recover f......
  • Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. of St. Louis v. Osher
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 2020
    ...of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law." Cent. Parking Sys. of Mo., LLC v. Tucker Parking Holdings, LLC , 519 S.W.3d 485, 492 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (footnote omitted) (quoting Lambrich v. Kay , 507 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ).Analysis Sec......
  • Custom Constr. Sols. v. B & P Constr.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 2023
    ... ... Exchange Building and parking garage in downtown St. Louis ... On ... Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ... "We view the evidence and ... 2013)); ... see also Central Parking Sys., LLC v. Tucker Parking ... Holdings, LLC , ... ...
  • Bextermueller News Distribs.. v. Lee Enters.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • August 29, 2023
    ...519 S.W.3d 485, 496 (Mo.Ct.App. 2017). “[I]t is clear that relief by estoppel is not favored by courts, and ‘will not be applied lightly.'” Id. (quoting Back Ventures, L.L.C. Series D v. Safeway, Inc., 410 S.W.3d 245, 255 (Mo.Ct.App.)). “[A]n estoppel ‘will not arise unless justice to the r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT