DePaul Community Health Center v. Trefts, 48634
| Decision Date | 29 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48634,48634 |
| Parties | DePAUL COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rita C. TREFTS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Gerald Julian Bamberger, St. Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.
William G. Buchholz, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff hospital sued defendant patient to recover on an unpaid bill for medical services rendered to defendant. Defendant's amended answer denied that plaintiff "... is a corporation duly organized and existing by law." The trial court found that as plaintiff was not a corporation it could not prove its corporate existence and directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals the resulting judgment against plaintiff DePaul Community Health Center, Daughters of Charity, a corporation, operating DePaul Community Health Center. Plaintiff seeks a new trial contending that: (1) the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion for directed verdict as defendant's answer to plaintiff's first amended petition did not adequately raise the issue of plaintiff's legal existence in compliance with Rule 55.13; and, (2) the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's oral motion to amend its petition to change the name of plaintiff to that of the existing corporation, DePaul Health Center, and for leave to reopen its case and present evidence of DePaul Health Center's corporate status and a prior change of name. Defendant submitted with her motion for directed verdict a document from the Secretary of State's office indicating that there are no records in the care and custody of the Secretary of State which show that the DePaul Community Health Center, Daughters of Charity is now or ever has been registered as a Foreign or Domestic corporation or under the Ficticious Name Act.
The issue on appeal arises out of the following facts. The original petition alleges, "[t]hat at all times herein mentioned Plaintiff was and is a corporation duly authorized and existing under the law." Respondent originally made a general denial to the entire petition. An amended answer reads, "[t]hat she is unable to either confirm or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Petition." Defendant's second amended answer reads, "[t]hat she denies that Plaintiff is a corporation duly authorized and existing under the law." After the second amended answer was filed plaintiff filed a first amended petition realleging plaintiff, DePaul Community Health Center, Daughters of Charity, a corporation operating as DePaul Community Health Center was a corporation. Defendant reanswered with the same specific denial of plaintiff's corporate existence pled in its second amended answer to the original petition.
Plaintiff argues that the express denial of its corporate existence was not a specific negative averment as required by Rule 55.13 as it fails to include supporting facts. Plaintiff relies on Want v. Leve, 574 S.W.2d 700 (Mo.App.1978) for the proposition that the practice of lulling a party into believing that all parties were correctly named should be condemned, and United Farm Agency v. Howald, 263 S.W.2d 889, 893 (Mo.App.1954) for the proposition that a defendant is obligated to raise this issue by specific negative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. All Funds in the Account of Prop. Futures, Inc.
...existing if it] is neither a natural nor artificial person, but is merely a name.”)(emphasis added), and De Paul Community Health Center v. Trefts, 688 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.Ct.App.1985)(a non-existing “entity” has no standing to sue since it has no legally cognizable interest in “its” claims)(emp......
-
Bey v. Stumpf
...1024, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985) (citing 59 Am.Jur.2d, Parties, §§ 20, 21); see also De Paul Community Health Center v. Trefts, 688 S.W.2d 379 (Mo.Ct.App.1985)”). ...
-
Moorish Sci. Temple of America 4th & 5th Generation v. Superior Court of New Jersey
...3 Conn. App. 598, 600, 490 A.2d 1024, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985), and citing De Paul Community Health Center v. Trefts, 688 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)). Moreover, even if "Chester R. Jenkins, Jr.'s estate" is not a product of imagination but a result of a valid ban......
-
Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. v. JEM Development Corp., 15195
...put the plaintiff's corporate existence into issue, without further alleging any supporting particulars. DePaul Community Health Center v. Trefts, 688 S.W.2d 379, 380-381 (Mo.App.1985). Most recently, our courts have determined that an answer containing a specific denial that a plaintiff wa......