Fisher v. Fusco

Decision Date18 January 2022
Docket NumberSD37132
PartiesNANCY FISHER, Respondent, v. MARCUS FUSCO, Respondent, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HICKORY COUNTY Honorable Mark B Pilley, Judge

DISMISSED

GARY W. LYNCH, C.J.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), which intervened in the underlying tort action brought by Nancy Fisher ("Plaintiff") against Marcus Fusco ("Defendant"), appeals a Rule 74.01(b) "Judgment and Order" denying its motion seeking the enforcement of a purported settlement agreement ("the motion to enforce").[1] Because State Farm was not aggrieved by the trial court's ruling on the motion to enforce, we dismiss its appeal for lack of standing.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed a petition for damages against Defendant, claiming that Defendant was legally at fault for a motor vehicle collision ("the collision") involving himself and Plaintiff. All parties to this lawsuit generally agree that Defendant's negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the collision.

Defendant however, also asserted several affirmative defenses in his amended answer, which included, in pertinent part, the following allegations:

Plaintiff's claim for an enforceable Judgment against Defendant for full recovery, as sought herein, is barred due to the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in that Plaintiff made an offer for settlement to limit recovery against Defendant on June 29, 2018, which was timely accepted on September 13, 2018 by State Farm (Defendant's insurer) on behalf of Defendant. The settlement agreement consisted of payment of the $50, 000 each person/$100, 000 each accident policy limits in exchange for resolution of all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant and such agreement must be enforced.

State Farm, Defendant's motor vehicle liability insurer thereafter sought and was granted intervention into the lawsuit "but only for the purpose of addressing the issue of the existence of an enforceable settlement agreement between State Farm and the Plaintiff which would have effectively settled Plaintiff's injury claim against Defendant arising out of the facts alleged in Plaintiff's Petition." Following its intervention, State Farm filed a pleading asserting, against Plaintiff, the same accord and satisfaction affirmative defense based upon the same purported settlement agreement as already had been pleaded by Defendant as well as counterclaims seeking the declaration and specific performance of the terms of that settlement agreement. State Farm then filed the motion to enforce, raising the same allegations as to the existence of a settlement agreement.

Ultimately, the trial court issued its "Judgment and Order" denying the motion to enforce. The trial court's reasoning for this denial was that "the Court does not believe that the correspondences exchanged by the parties constituted an enforceable agreement and that they were at best an agreement to agree and would require further negotiations and documentation." Without reaching any of the other claims or defenses raised by the parties in their pleadings, the trial court stated that "[t]he Court, in entering this Judgment, expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay."

State Farm's timely appeal followed.

State Farm Lacks Standing to Appeal the Denial of the Motion to Enforce

"In every case before considering claims raised on appeal, this Court has a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have authority to decide the appeal." Collector of Revenue of City of St. Louis v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, 350 S.W.3d 840, 841 (Mo.App. 2011). "The right to appeal is purely statutory and where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists." Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). "If the appellate court lacks authority to hear an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed." Lopez v. Heartland Midwest, LLC, 602 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Mo.App. 2020).

As applicable here, "[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court in any civil cause . . . may . . . appeal . . . from any . . . [f]inal judgment in the case . . . ." Section 512.020(5).[2] Thus, "[t]o have a right to appeal under [section] 512.020, the appealing party must be both a party to the action and 'aggrieved' by the particular judgment or order which it seeks to challenge on appeal." Knight by and Through Knight v. Knight, 609 S.W.3d 813, 818-19 (Mo.App. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, there "must be a judgment (i.e., it must fully resolve at least one claim in a lawsuit and establish all the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to that claim)" and "it must be 'final,' either because it disposes of all claims (or the last claim) in a lawsuit, or because it has been certified for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b)." Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Mo. banc 2020).

Here, at a minimum, State Farm fails to satisfy the "aggrieved" requirement under section 512.020. A right to intervene, assuming without deciding that State Farm had such a right in this case, is not synonymous with being an aggrieved party. See Knight, 609 S.W.3d at 819 ("[I]t is not enough that State Farm was allowed to intervene and became a party to the action; rather, it must at the same time be aggrieved by the judgment it challenges."). "For a party to be 'aggrieved,' the judgment must operate prejudicially and directly on the party's personal or property rights or interests, and such effect must be immediate, not merely a possible remote consequence." Bi-State Development Agency of Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan Dist. v. Ames Realty Co., 258 S.W.3d 99, 104-105 (Mo.App. 2008) (citing Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 793 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo. banc 1990)). "A party cannot be said to be 'aggrieved,' unless error has been committed against [it]." Howe v. Heartland Midwest, LLC, 604 S.W.3d 774, 779 (Mo.App. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "[a]n appellant may not challenge portions of a judgment that resolve issues solely between other parties and do not resolve the claims made by that appellant." Charnisky v. Chrismer, 185 S.W.3d 699, 702 (Mo.App. 2006).

The relevant issue between the parties in this case is whether a compromise settlement was reached.

A compromise settlement is a contract. In order for the compromise settlement to be legally valid, it must possess the essential elements of any other contract. Agreements to settle pending lawsuits are enforceable by motion. A motion to compel settlement adds to a pending action a collateral action for specific performance of the settlement agreement. The party requesting specific performance of the agreement has the burden of proving the claim by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.

Precision Investments, L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Propane, L.P., 220 S.W.3d 301, 303 (Mo. banc 2007) (internal citations omitted).

Here in this tort action, although State Farm was the party that filed the motion to enforce, a claim for specific performance of a compromise settlement is not a claim that State Farm can bring against Plaintiff. A "claim" is "(1) a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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