Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 63861.,WD 63861. |
| Citation | 160 S.W.3d 810 |
| Parties | CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., Appellant, v. Jennifer S. WILSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Edward R. Spalty, Gerald A. King, Co-Counsel, Karrie J. Clinkinbeard, Co-Counsel, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Jackie D. Hendrix, St. Joseph, MO, for Respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., SPINDEN and SMART, JJ.
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("Citibank") appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Jennifer Wilson. Citibank sued Wilson for breach of contract after Wilson failed to make payments on her Citibank credit card account. After Citibank presented its case, the trial court granted Wilson's oral motion to dismiss.
In December 1999, Wilson applied for a Citibank credit card and signed an acceptance certificate, agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement.1 Citibank subsequently issued her a credit card. Wilson began using her credit card and made monthly payments to Citibank. In July 2001, Citibank mailed Wilson her credit card statement, which informed her that it was modifying the terms of the original agreement. This revised agreement was enclosed with the credit card statement. After the July 2001 statement was mailed to her, Wilson continued using her credit card and made monthly payments on her account balance. Wilson made her last payment to Citibank in March 2002 and failed to make payments thereafter. Citibank consequently filed a "Petition On Contract" against Wilson to collect the overdue balance, $12,272.84.
At trial, Citibank attempted to enforce the revised agreement that Wilson received with her July 2001 credit card statement. In presenting its case, Citibank produced the revised agreement but did not introduce the original agreement. At the close of Citibank's evidence, Wilson orally moved to dismiss the case. The trial court sustained Wilson's motion, reasoning that Citibank had failed to prove that Wilson had accepted the revised agreement or that the revised agreement was supported by valid consideration.
"A motion to dismiss at the close of a plaintiff's evidence in a court-tried case submits the issues on the merits on which plaintiffs have the burden of persuasion, requiring the trial court to determine credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence, so that the appeal from the ruling on the motion is from a final determination of the issues in question." Morris v. Brown, 941 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo.App.1997). Consequently, an appellate court will affirm the judgment unless it is against the weight of the evidence, it is not supported by substantial evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
I.
Citibank's first point claims that the trial court erred by not applying South Dakota law in determining whether Wilson had accepted the revised agreement. Citibank argues that South Dakota law governs its contractual relationship with Wilson and contends that, under South Dakota law, it could unilaterally change the terms of their contract and Wilson would not have to expressly assent to the changes for there to be a valid, binding agreement.2 Accordingly, Citibank claims that the trial court's failure to apply South Dakota law led to the erroneous judgment.
Citibank argues that South Dakota law should have been applied because: (1) federal case law requires that the laws of a credit card company's home state must be applied in a suit to enforce a credit card agreement; and (2) the credit card agreement contains a clause providing that South Dakota law governs the terms and enforcement of the agreement. Both arguments are misplaced.
Citibank argues that the United States Supreme Court has held that South Dakota law applies to contracts entered into by a credit card issuer, citing Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 99 S.Ct. 540, 58 L.Ed.2d 534 (1978), and Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996), in support of this proposition. However, Citibank misconstrues these two cases. First, Marquette dealt with whether a national bank could charge an out-of-state credit card holder an interest rate that was valid in the bank's home state when such rate was not permitted by the laws of the cardholder's state. 439 U.S. at 301, 99 S.Ct. 540. Smiley dealt with whether late fees were properly considered interest. 517 U.S. at 737, 116 S.Ct. 1730. Further, the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85, which was at issue in both Marquette and Smiley, only addresses the interest rate that a bank may charge. Nowhere in the cases cited by Citibank, nor in the statute interpreted by those cases, is there any language that mentions the application of the laws of the credit card issuer's home state in relation to the enforcement of contracts, let alone mandating the application of such laws.
Citibank also argues that South Dakota law applies because the credit card agreement contained a choice of law provision. This court agrees with Citibank that a valid choice of law provision in a contract would bind the parties. However, Citibank disregards the fact that the only choice of law provision before the trial court was contained in the revised agreement, the validity of which is in question. This court would have to resort to circular logic to reach Citibank's conclusion that the agreement was valid. Here, Citibank argues that the agreement would be valid if South Dakota law applies. For South Dakota law to apply, the choice of law provision in the revised agreement must be given effect. But the choice of law provision is effective only if the revised agreement is valid. In essence, Citibank is asking that this court use a term from an agreement to determine its validity.
Despite Citibank's misplaced arguments as to why South Dakota law applies, the issue is moot. Under Missouri contract law, there was sufficient evidence that Wilson had, in fact, accepted the revised agreement through her conduct, i.e., her continued use of the credit card after receiving the July 2001 credit card statement that included the terms of the revised agreement.
The basic elements of a contract are offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration to support the contract. Luebbert v. Simmons, 98 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Mo.App.2003). Here, there is no question as to whether Citibank made a valid offer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cova v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
...Karzon v. AT & T, Inc., No. 4:13-CV-2202 CEJ, 2014 WL 51331, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2014) (citing Citibank (S.Dakota), N.A. v.. Wilson, 160 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)). The Court holds that all of the elements of a contract are present to support the validity of the arbitration ag......
-
Thomas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC
...explicit spoken or written word." Pride v. Lewis , 179 S.W.3d 375, 379–80 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Wilson, 160 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)). "An offer may, instead, be accepted by the offeree's conduct or failure to act." Citibank , 160 S.W.3d at ......
-
Williams v. Henry L. Gusky, in His Capacity of President Casinos, Inc. (In re President Casinos, Inc.)
...means that there is consideration which is a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. See Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Wilson, 160 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Mo.App.2005); State ex rel. Vincent v. Schneider, 194 S.W.3d 853, 859 (Mo.2006). Mutuality of agreement occurs when there is......
-
Hinten v. Midland Funding, LLC
...subsequently modified by plaintiffs and defendant's assignors. To support its argument, defendant relies on Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A. v. Wilson, 160 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). In that case, the state appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss on the ground that the......