Frein v. Madesco Inv. Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 51942,51942 |
| Citation | 735 S.W.2d 760 |
| Parties | Donald FREIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MADESCO INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a corporation Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Larry Michael Bauer, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Sidney Fortus, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment against it in accord with a jury verdict in an employment case. Plaintiff brought his action in five counts. The first was for violation of the service letter statute. Sec. 290.140 RSMo 1986. The jury awarded plaintiff $1 actual and $60,000 punitive damages. The court set aside the award of punitive damages. No appeal has been taken from Count I. Count II sought damages for bonuses promised plaintiff but not paid. Counts III and IV sought similar recoveries for vacation pay and car allowance respectively. The jury awarded a total of $15,937 on these three counts. Count V sought recovery of the last two weeks pay which was not paid to plaintiff. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff on that count and no appeal was taken from that count. We affirm.
Defendant's only point on appeal is that the trial court erred in precluding defendant from introducing evidence that plaintiff was terminated by his previous employer for acts of misconduct including stealing, drunkenness, and abusive conduct toward other employees.
Plaintiff's prior employer was Apted-Hullings which operated a restaurant in a hotel owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff was manager of that restaurant. He was hired by defendant in either October or November 1979 as food and beverage Director for defendant's hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida. Plaintiff testified that at the time of his employment he was orally promised a bonus of 10% of net profits from the restaurant and beverage operation and two weeks paid vacation. The operation in Florida was operating at a loss when plaintiff was sent there. When he was brought back to St. Louis the operation was still incurring a loss but at a lesser rate. Upon his return to St. Louis in April 1980, plaintiff received a raise of $2,000. In August 1980 he was promoted to Corporate and Beverage Director of defendant and his salary was increased by $2400. At the same time plaintiff testified that he was promised a bonus of 10% of the net profits from defendant's operations at the Holiday Riverfront restaurant and Jackie's Place--a food and beverage operation in St. Louis County. He was also offered a car allowance of $75 per month in lieu of a company car and the vacation pay offer was again made. A month later plaintiff was promoted to Vice-President and received an increase in pay of $2,600. In November, 1981, plaintiff was discharged. He sought recovery of the bonus, vacation pay, and car allowance from August 1, 1980, until time of termination. Defendant denied that it had made any agreement to pay plaintiff any of the three items.
Defendant's theory is that if it had been allowed to establish that in 1979 plaintiff was about to be terminated by Apted-Hullings for misconduct and that this was known to both plaintiff and defendant, it would create an inference that plaintiff was in no bargaining position to insist on the items covered by Counts II through IV.
It is questionable that this matter has been preserved for appeal. Prior to trial plaintiff filed its motion in limine to prohibit introduction of this evidence. The ground for this motion was that the evidence was irrelevant to plaintiff's service letter claim. In its response defendant asserted it was relevant to the punitive damages issue. It also asserted it was relevant for the reasons it now asserts on appeal. At the argument before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marion v. Marcus
...offered.... It cannot advance a theory of admissibility on appeal different from that advanced at trial." Frein v. Madesco Inv. Corp., 735 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. E.D.1987). The relevancy grounds asserted at trial are abandoned here by not being raised on appeal, and the grounds now raised......
-
Simpson v. Smith
...order. Williams v. Enochs, 742 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. banc 1987); Manner v. H.E.T., Inc., 739 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.1987); Frein v. Madesco Investment Corp., 735 S.W.2d 760 (Mo.App.1987); State ex rel. Westfall v. Gerhard, 642 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.App.1982). It is clear that even though a motion in limine ......
-
Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...cannot advance a theory of admissibility on appeal different from that advanced at trial.'" Id. (quoting Frein v. Madesco Investment Corporation, 735 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. 1987)). Rule 84.13(a) says, "[A]llegations of error not presented to or expressly decided by the trial court shall n......
-
In the Matter of The Care v. State
...court its position as to relevancy of evidence offered. Such position should be included in the offer of proof.” Frein v. Madesco Inv. Corp., 735 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App.1987). King did not do so. Even if we construed King's pre-trial arguments against the motion in limine broadly enough to......