Grisham v. Mission Bank
Decision Date | 13 June 2017 |
Docket Number | WD 79964 |
Citation | 531 S.W.3d 522 |
Parties | Theresa GRISHAM, Respondent, v. The MISSION BANK, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James A. Kessinger and Luke A. Demaree, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
David D. Ferguson, G. Edgar James, and Daniel A. Stuart, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.
Before Division Two: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
The Mission Bank appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Theresa Grisham on her claims of wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, in which she sought damages following Bank's foreclosure sale of Grisham's real property pursuant to a deed of trust. Bank argues that, because Grisham had defaulted under the terms of various loan documents before Bank exercised its right to seek foreclosure, she should not have been allowed to pursue any of her claims. We agree and reverse the judgment below.
Grisham and her former husband owned and operated their own business, Grisham Grading and Excavating, Inc. (GGE), a Kansas corporation. The Grishams also had a custom-built home on 150 acres in Platte City, Missouri. At its highest value, the home and surrounding real estate was worth approximately $2.1 million.
To facilitate their business, the Grishams executed several promissory notes with Bank, which were secured by various equipment and personal property, personal guaranties from the Grishams, individually, and their real property. The following chart identifies the notes at issue in this appeal, their principal amounts, their interest rates, and their corresponding security:
Loan Number Amount[1] interest Rate Collateral Equipment, vehicles, personal guaranties 740040 $3,000,000 6.00% from Grisham and her ex-husband, 5th Deed of Trust on Grisham's real property Personal guaranties of Grisham and her 324054 $250,000 6.00% ex-husband, 3rd Deed of Trust on Grisham's real property 324104 $250,000 6.00% 4th Deed of Trust on Grisham's real property 324105 $250,000 6.00% 1st Deed of Trust on Grisham's real property
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote1 ].
There are four Deeds of Trust at issue in this appeal that were executed on Grisham's real property in connection with the various notes. Each Deed of Trust provided for future advances and obligations and contained "Mother Hubbard" provisions2 as well as provisions indicating a "maximum lien" amount. In the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deeds of Trust, the "future advances" provision stated:
In addition to the Note, this Deed of Trust secures all future advances made by [Bank] to Borrower or Grantor whether or not the advances are made pursuant to a commitment. Specifically, without limitation, this Deed of Trust secures, in addition to the amounts specified in the Note, all future obligations of Borrower or Grantor to [Bank] and all future amounts [Bank] in its discretion may loan to Borrower or Grantor, together with all interest thereon; however, in no event shall such future advances and obligations (excluding interest) exceed in the aggregate [the maximum lien amount].
The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deeds of Trust also contained "cross-collateralization" provisions, which provided:
In addition to the Note, this Deed of Trust secures all obligations, debts and liabilities, plus interest thereon, of either Grantor or Borrower to [Bank], or any one or more of them, as well as all claims by [Bank] against Borrower or Grantor or any one or more of them, whether now existing or hereafter arising, whether related or unrelated to the purpose of the Note, whether voluntary or otherwise, whether due or not due, direct or indirect, determined or undetermined, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, whether Borrower or Grantor may be liable individually or jointly with others, whether obligated as guarantor, surety, accommodation party or otherwise, and whether recovery upon such amounts may be or hereafter may become barred by any statute of limitations, and whether the obligation to repay such amounts may be or hereafter may become otherwise unenforceable. If [Bank] is required to give notice of the right to cancel under Truth in Lending in connection with any additional loans, extensions of credit and other liabilities or obligations of Grantor to [Bank], then this Deed of Trust shall not secure additional loans or obligations unless and until such notice is given.
The 1st Deed of Trust contained a "secured debt and future advances" provision, which provided:
The "maximum lien" provision in the 5th Deed of Trust provided: "The total principal amount of obligations at any one time which is secured by this Deed of Trust, in addition to any interest and any amounts advanced by [Bank] for the protection of the security interests granted herein, is $500,000." The same language was used in the 3rd and 4th Deeds of Trust, with the only difference that the amount identified was $250,000, rather than $500,000. Unlike the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Deeds of Trust's "maximum lien" provision, the 1st Deed of Trust contained a "maximum obligation limit" provision. That provision provided:
The total principal amount secured by this Security Instrument at any one time shall not exceed $250,000. This limitation of amount does not include interest and other fees and charges validly made pursuant to this Security Instrument. Also, this limitation does not apply to advances made under the terms of this Security Instrument to protect Lender's security and to perform any of the covenants contained in this Security Instrument.
The following chart identifies the various Deeds of Trust, the loans secured by each, and their "maximum lien" amounts:
Deed of Trust Loan Number Maximum Lien/Obligation Limit 1st Deed of Trust 324105 $250,000 3rd Deed of Trust4 324054 $250,000 4th Deed of Trust 324104 $250,000 5th Deed of Trust 740040 $500,000
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote4 ].
The Grishams divorced in 2007, and upon their dissolution, Theresa Grisham was awarded the marital home and real property. By March of 2009, Loans 324105, 324054, 324104, and 740040, along with other loans, had matured and not been paid. Additionally, GGE's bank account was then overdrawn by $27,000. Accordingly, because of GGE's apparently dire financial condition and Grisham's failure to make payments, Bank determined that its ability to collect approximately $2.55 million in outstanding indebtedness was materially impaired, resulting in a default under the various loan documents.
Grisham requested that Bank forbear from exercising its rights and remedies under the loan documents, and Bank agreed, so the parties entered into a Forbearance Agreement on April 6, 2009.5 As part of that agreement, Grisham acknowledged her default on the various loan documents and agreed that the amount of the outstanding indebtedness was approximately $2.55 million. Grisham agreed to make regularly scheduled interest-only payments in the amount of $13,215.11 (plus accrued interest on a new note executed simultaneously with the Forbearance Agreement) to Bank on the 15th day of each month, beginning on May 15, 2009.
On August 31, 2009, the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Throneburg v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
...and retention of the benefit by the defendant in circumstances that would render that retention inequitable." Grisham v. Mission Bank, 531 S.W.3d 522, 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. RAKS Hosp., Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536, 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). At this time, the Court cannot co......
-
L&F Brands, Inc. v. Crown Valley Winery, Inc.
...entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which she seeks to recover." Id.; see also Grisham v. Mission Bank, 531 S.W.3d 522, 538-39 (Mo.App. W.D. 2017) (quoting id.). Defendant thus contends that these two equitable claims are unavailable to plaintiff and must be dis......
-
Rainey v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co.
...of the Standard Policy. "Deeds of trust are subject to generally applicable rules of contract construction." Grisham v. Mission Bank, 531 S.W.3d 522, 537 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citing Central Bank of Kan. City v. Perry, 427 S.W.3d 285, 288 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014)). "The first step in interpreti......
-
Park Ridge Assocs. v. U.M.B. Bank
...[they have] entered into an express contract for the very subject matter for which [they seek] to recover. Grisham v. Mission Bank , 531 S.W.3d 522, 538-39 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (internal citations omitted).Appellants’ arguments ignore the fact the contract explicitly permitted Respondents’ ......