Dynamic Computer Etc. v. Midwest Marketing

• Decision Date: 17 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. WD 60370.,WD 60370.
• Citation: Dynamic Computer Etc. v. Midwest Marketing, 91 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. App. 2002)
• Parties: DYNAMIC COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. MIDWEST MARKETING INSURANCE AGENCY, L.L.C., Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 708

91 S.W.3d 708

DYNAMIC COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellant, v.MIDWEST MARKETING INSURANCE AGENCY, L.L.C., Respondent.

No. WD 60370.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

December 17, 2002.

James F. Adler, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

R. Gregory Harrison, Liberty, MO, for Respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SPINDEN and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

EDWIN H. SMITH, Judge.

Dynamic Computer Solutions, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, after a trial before the court, awarding it $17,675 in damages on its suit on account against the respondent, Midwest Marketing Insurance Agency, L.L.C., in which the appellant was seeking total damages of $26,581.61.

The appellant raises two points on appeal, both of which challenge the amount of the trial court's award.In Point I, it claims that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the appellant's evidence and its motion for a new trial or in the alternative to vacate, amend or modify the court's judgment, because the trial court, in accordance with Rule 59.01(a),¹ governing requests for and the effect of admissions, was required, but failed, to deem as admitted the matters on which admissions were requested and which conclusively established the amount owed to the appellant from the respondent, entitling it, as a matter of law, to judgment in the full amount pled in its petition, $26,581.61.In Point II, it claims that "[t]he trial court erred in not entering a judgment in favor of appellant for $25,620.56² and in not sustaining appellant's motion for new trial or in the alternative to vacate, amend or modify judgment since respondent admitted this amount was due on Exhibit 8, one of respondent's checks remitted on its account with appellant, in that an admission by a party in a document such as a check that is remitted as payment on an account is a binding admission and any verdict that is inconsistent with this admission is against the weight of the evidence and should be vacated or amended in accordance with Rules 75.01and78.02."

We reverse and remand with directions.

Facts

The appellant, a Missouri corporation, provided computer-related goods and merchandise to the respondent from May 1, 2000, through November 13, 2000.During that period of time, a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount the respondent owed on its account with the appellant.The dispute was over a charge of $9,681 for a scanner, which the respondent returned as being defective.

On April 20, 2001, the appellant filed a suit on account against the respondent in the associate division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, seeking to collect $26,581.61, with interest thereon from March 31, 2001.On June 7, 2001, the respondent was served with a request for admissions from the appellant, which requested that the respondent admit, inter alia, that it requested all the goods provided to it by the appellant; that the charges for those goods were reasonable; and that the balance then due on its account with the appellant was $26,581.61.On July 9, 2001, Shaun Fagan, who is referred to in the record as the "owner" of the respondent corporation, sent a letter to the appellant's counsel, which was sent in response to the June 23, 2001, settlement letter³he received from the appellant's counsel.In his letter, Shaun Fagan contested the amount that the appellant claimed was owed by the respondent, specifically, the charge for the scanner that was allegedly returned as defective.The letter made no mention of the appellant's request for admissions.

On July 9, 2001, the appellant filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for a Judgment on the Pleadings."The motion alleged that there was no genuine dispute of the material facts entitling the appellant to judgment in the full amount prayed for in the appellant's petition because the respondent had not filed a timely answer to the appellant's request for admissions, and, thus, pursuant to Rule 59.01(a), the matters contained in the request were deemed admitted, entitling the appellant to a judgment for the full amount pleaded, as a matter of law.

On July 12, 2001, the appellant's suit on account was tried to the court.The appellant appeared by counsel, and the respondent appeared pro se, represented in court by two of its employees, Mary Fagan and Gayla Hodges.Prior to evidence being heard, counsel for the appellant sought a ruling on its motion for summary judgment.The appellant argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the matters deemed admitted by the respondent, most notably that it owed the appellant the full amount of its stated claim.The trial court overruled the appellant's motion on the basis that the respondent had not been afforded the requisite time to respond to the motion.Without ruling on the effect of the respondent's failure to timely answer the appellant's request for admissions and the need for it to present evidence to carry its burden of proof on its claim, the trial court instructed the appellant to proceed with the presentation of its evidence, which it did.

To prove its case, the appellant called as witnesses its vice-president and branch manager, who testified, inter alia, as to the goods sold to the respondent, the amounts charged, and the amount owed by the respondent as of March 31, 2001.At the close of its case, the appellant moved for a directed verdict for the full amount claimed in its petition, based on the admissions of the respondent.The trial court took the appellant's motion under advisement and proceeded to hear the respondent's evidence.The respondent's case consisted of testimony from Mary Fagan, the chief financial officer for the respondent, and Hodges, the respondent's office manager, who testified, inter alia, that the respondent did not owe the appellant the amount sought in its petition because that amount incorrectly included a charge of $9,681 for a scanner that was allegedly returned as being defective.The respondent offered no evidence concerning its failure to timely answer the appellant's request for admissions.

At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court took a recess to consider the case.Following the recess, the trial court proceeded to decide the case, stating:

All right.Now I believe that there was a matter of motions that the Court wants to take up.We had a point in time at the outset of the matter of taking up a motion for summary judgment, which was overruled at this [sic] time.

There was also a motion for enforcement of discovery and for sanctions in regard to circumstances here.I'm going to — At this time based upon information I have in regard to the circumstances, overrule that.

Also, I have here a matter in regard to admissions.I have here some information, apparently, that was coming from [the appellant's counsel] dated July 9th, although it was out of time, but it looks like that is from Mr. Fagan.He's not a lawyer and under the circumstances there is some information the Court has in regard to an admission that he's made here in regard of the circumstances.

At this time based upon the circumstances and evaluation of the evidence that was presented by both sides, the Court's going to enter judgment in favor of [the appellant] at this time for the sum of $17,675, plus costs.And I am as well going to make a separate assessment in addition to attorney's fees at $400 in favor of [the appellant].And that will be a total of $18,075.

On July 28, 2001, the appellant filed its "Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative to Vacate, Amend or Modify Judgment."As a basis for its motion, the appellant reiterated its argument that the respondent was deemed to have admitted all the material facts necessary for it to recover in the full amount prayed for in its petition due to the respondent's failure to answer the appellant's request for admissions in a timely fashion.The trial court overruled the appellant's motion on August 15, 2001.

This appeal follows.

I.

In Point I, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the appellant's evidence and its motion for a new trial or in the alternative to vacate, amend, or modify the court's judgment, because the trial court, in accordance with Rule 59.01(a), governing requests for and the effect of admissions, was required, but failed, to deem as admitted the matters on which admissions were requested and which conclusively established the amount owed to the appellant from the respondent, entitling it, as a matter of law, to judgment in the full amount pled in its petition, $ 26,581.61.We agree.

The appellant, by the express terms of its point relied on, is ostensibly attacking, in the alternative, three different rulings of the trial court: (1)the court's denial of its motion for a "directed verdict" at the close of the appellant's evidence; (2)the court's denial of its motion for a new trial; and (3)the court's denial of its motion to amend the judgment by entering judgment for the appellant in the full amount prayed for in the petition.With respect to the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion for a new trial, it is clear in reading the appellant's argument and the relief requested in this point that the appellant is not, in fact, attacking that ruling of the court and requesting relief therefrom.In that regard, as noted, supra,the appellant is claiming in this point that, in accordance with Rule 59.01, the allegations of its petition necessary to establish its claim in the full amount pled were deemed admitted, were not subject to dispute, and were conclusively established as to those matters such that it was entitled to a judgment in the full amount requested in its petition.In light thereof, the appellant requests on appeal that the trial court's judgment be reversed or modified so as...