Curry Inv. Co. v. Santilli

Citation494 S.W.3d 18
Decision Date28 June 2016
Docket NumberWD 78899
Parties Curry Investment Company, Appellant, v. James B. Santilli, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

494 S.W.3d 18

Curry Investment Company, Appellant,
v.
James B. Santilli, Respondent.

WD 78899

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 28, 2016


Natig R. Guseynov, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Robin S. Martinez and Benjamin F. Easter, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, and Thomas H. Newton and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Curry Investment Company appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the Defendant James B. Santilli on Curry's breach of contract action. Curry argues that the trial court erred in: (1) allowing Santilli to testify and present evidence on issues that had been deemed admitted due to Santilli's failure to respond to Curry's requests for admissions; and (2) determining that doors Santilli installed on Curry's property were business fixtures. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Background1

Curry and Santilli entered into a commercial lease agreement, wherein Santilli's business, which produced custom furniture and medical beds, leased part of a building that Curry owned. Under the terms of the lease agreement, physical improvements to the rented space were subject to the following clause:

Except for [Santilli's] property and business fixtures, all buildings, repairs, alterations, additions, improvements, installations, and other non-business fixtures installed or erected on the premises, whether by or at the expense of [Curry] or [Santilli], will belong to [Curry] and will remain on and be surrendered with the premises at the expiration or termination of this lease.

Santilli installed fourteen doors in the leased space. Upon termination of the lease, Santilli removed the doors from the building. Curry subsequently filed suit, alleging that the doors were non-business fixtures, and that, under the lease agreement, the doors remained Curry's property.

During the litigation, Curry propounded discovery, including requests for admissions under Rule 59.01.2 The requests included the following:

5. ADMIT that you removed 14 doors from the premises; [and]

6. ADMIT that each door you removed from the [p]remises were improvements, installations, and non-business fixtures.

Santilli did not respond to Curry's requests for admissions.

On the morning of trial, before the presentation of evidence, Curry requested that

494 S.W.3d 23

certain unidentified issues be deemed admitted because of Santilli's failure to respond to the requests for admissions. Curry's counsel told the trial court:

[T]here is a discovery issue here. We served interrogatories, request for admissions, as well as a request for production of documents to Mr. Santilli on or about May 4th of this year. Mr. Santilli halfway answered the interrogatories, but he failed to respond to the request for production of documents, as well as for a request for admissions under Rule 59.01. Additionally, he also did not file any type of a certificate with the Court saying that he fully and completely answered our discovery request. We have filed a certificate saying that we have propounded them to Mr. Santilli under 59.01. If you do not basically answer the admission, they are deemed admitted. And we're going to ask the Court to basically rule as such. At the least, take judicial notice of that before we proceed.

(Emphasis added.) The trial court responded that, “we'll take your motion with the case ... since we're here today trying the case.” Curry's counsel responded, “No, problem.” And the parties proceeded to present evidence. There is nothing in the record that indicates that Curry ever filed the requests for admissions with the court prior to the day of trial, or that it offered a copy of the requests to the court during the pre-trial discussions.

In its case-in-chief, Curry offered the testimony of its senior vice president, Mike Sweeney, who testified to the terms of the lease, the nature of the doors at issue, and that the removal of the doors caused damage to the building. Curry did not present testimony regarding the requests for admissions or offer them to the court as an exhibit.3

In response, Santilli offered testimony on the issue of whether the doors were business fixtures.

MR. SANTILLI:

There are no disputes in the fact [sic] in this case, Your Honor. We moved into a building that had open rooms, no doors. We had a business that produced furniture, custom built furniture, and we produced medical beds.

In our old location we had partitioned doors between the rooms so that we would have clean working areas and we could control fumes, feathers, spraying, and keep storage of medical beds and everything separate from production of residential furniture.

When we moved into that space there were no doors whatsoever. There were walls separating the rooms. What we installed to solve our needs and our problem is what I refer to as a partition door. These were tools and equipment of the business purchased to be moved in that space as our production dictated, so that we could produce medical beds, furniture, and other things and close these rooms off.

We also moved these doors around. They did not stay fixed in one location. We might close one end of the building off. And at one point when we lost production of the medical beds we removed the jamb, moved the door.

At this point, Curry's counsel objected to Santilli's testimony:

MR. GUSEYNOV:

Your Honor, before Mr. Santilli kind of goes any further, I want to again
494 S.W.3d 24
point the Court's attention that we asked specific questions in our request for admissions; more specifically, No. 5 that says: Admit that you removed 14 doors from the premises, and No. 6 saying: Admit that each door you removed from the premises were improvement installations and non-business fixtures at the premises. Under the rules these are deemed admitted. And basically, under the rules, there should be no further dispute regarding these along with other stuff.

We asked Mr. Santilli in the interrogatories to basically give us his explanation as to each and every fact that he's going to be relying upon to deny any of his—deny any of our claims in the petition that he did not adequately answer. So under the rules, I will object to this and leave it to the Court's discretion as to how it wants to rule.

The court indicated that it would take the objection with the case and allowed Santilli to testify.4

Over Curry's objection, Santilli testified that he did not install the doors with the intent that they become permanent fixtures, and that the building was not damaged when they were removed.

Neither party asked for findings of fact or conclusions of law. Following trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Santilli, finding simply that the doors were business fixtures and that, pursuant to the lease, he had the right to remove them. Curry filed a motion for new trial, or in the alternative, for an amended judgment, based on the effect of Santilli's failure to respond to Curry's requests for admissions. In response, the trial court entered an “Amended Order Overruling Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial,” finding that Santilli's email to Curry's counsel functioned as a response to Curry's requests. Curry timely appeals.

Standard of Review

In a court-tried case, “we affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it misstates the law, or it misapplies the law.” Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. R.S., 368 S.W.3d 327, 334 (Mo.App.W.D.2012). “We view all of the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Bolt v. Giordano, 310 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Mo.App.E.D.2010). “When neither party requests the entry of findings of fact or conclusions of law, we assume the trial court resolved all issues of fact in accordance with the result reached.” Id. ; Rule 73.01(c).

Analysis

Curry argues two points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in allowing Santilli to testify, because Santilli's failure to respond to the requests for admissions meant that the requested admissions were conclusively established and Santilli should not have been allowed to provide contrary testimony; and (2) even if Santilli's testimony could be considered, the trial court misapplied the law in determining that the doors were removable business fixtures, as opposed to permanent fixtures. Because the

494 S.W.3d 25

issues are intertwined, we review the points together.

“After commencement of an action, a party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 56.01(b).” Rule 59.01(a). “Responses shall be served within 30 days after the service of the requests for admissions.” Rule 59.01(d)(1). “A failure to timely respond to requests for admissions in compliance with this Rule 59.01 shall result in each matter being admitted.” Rule 59.01(a). Admissions under Rule 59.01 are treated like...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Navarro v. Navarro
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 2016
    ...W.D. 2012). And "[t]he appendix is not part of the legal file or otherwise part of the record on appeal." Curry Inv. Co. v. Santilli , 494 S.W.3d 18, 30 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)(quoting Bison Park Dev., LLC v. N. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B. , 399 S.W.3d 877, 882 n.7 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) ). "It is......
  • Bell v. W. Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 25, 2017
    ...Edward Welsh, Judge, concur.--------Notes:1 The facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Curry Inv. Co. v. Santilli, 494 S.W.3d 18, 22 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016).2 All statutory citations are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2000), as updated through the 2013 Cumulativ......
  • Arrowhead Lake Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Aggarwal
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2021
    ...were not presented or argued. See Sanders v. City of Columbia , 602 S.W.3d 288, 298 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ; Curry Inv. Co. v. Santilli , 494 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ; Sweet v. Sweet , 154 S.W.3d 499, 507 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005).ConclusionThe circuit court's judgment is affirmed. Russ......
  • Arrowhead Lake Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Aggarwal
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2021
    ...that were not presented or argued. See Sanders v. City of Columbia, 602 S.W.3d 288, 298 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020); Curry Inv. Co. v. Santilli, 494 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016); Sweet v. Sweet, 154 S.W.3d 499, 507 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005).Conclusion The circuit court's judgment is affirmed. /s/......
  • 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