Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 74815,74815 |
| Parties | KAMIL, DECKER & COMPANY, P.C., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SMC PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
J. Richard McEachern, St. Louis, for appellant.
Howard A. Wittner, Gregory N. Wittner, Wittner, Poger, Spewak & Maylack, P.C., Clayton, for respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.
Plaintiff, Kamil, Decker & Company, P.C., an accounting and computer consulting firm, filed an action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to recover $3,827.50 on the theories of breach of oral contract and unjust enrichment from defendant, SMC Properties, Inc., a maintenance and snow removal company, for its services in providing defendant with a software system for billing and accounting and other software support services. The case was tried to the court. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff elected to submit its breach of contract claim on the theory of quantum meruit. Defendant then moved for judgment on the pleadings and the evidence on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove the reasonable value of its services. The trial court took the motion under advisement and heard defendant's evidence. After hearing all of the evidence, the court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict on Count I on the ground that plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof to establish the reasonable value of its services to support its quantum meruit claim. It also entered judgment for defendant on the unjust enrichment count. For its sole point on appeal, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff had failed to show the reasonable value of its services.
Before addressing this point we must consider the standard of review. In this court-tried case, defendant made a motion for judgment at the close of plaintiff's case. The court, however, sustained it as a motion for directed verdict. In a court-tried case there is no verdict. St. Luke's Episcopal-Presbyterian Hosp. v. Underwood, 957 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Mo.App.1997). The motion is a motion for judgment on the grounds that upon the facts and the law plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Rule 73.01(a)(2). No matter how denominated, we treat such a motion as submitting the issues on the merits. St. Luke's, 957 S.W.2d at 498. We therefore review under the principles enunciated in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
We find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32. No error of law appears. In this case plaintiff's witness, Joel Kamil, who was a CPA and 50 per cent shareholder in the plaintiff corporation, testified that the fees charged in the invoices were "what we determine to be reasonable and fair, and - and to a great extent market driven and competitive with - with other people doing - performing this same service." In response to plaintiff's attorney's question asking why the fees are market-driven, Kamil said:
Frankly, there are other people and there is a lot of competition out there doing this type of work, some of which don't have the experience and they're charging a lot lower fees. And you just kind of have to play with it. These fees are less than what we charge for - for work that we do as CPA's, such as financial statements, tax returns, and so forth, because of the competitive factors in the computer market.
Plaintiff offered three invoices into evidence, one for $2,000, which was the unpaid balance on plaintiff's original proposal, but did not show what work, hours, or fees were covered by the $2,000, and two which showed hours spent and hourly fees for the remaining charges. Plaintiff did not offer any other evidence to show the reasonable value of the work. Kamil did not testify to or explain the exhibits. Further, Kamil did not relate the actual work done to the charges therefor or testify to the reasonableness of those charges for that work.
To sustain a quantum meruit claim, a plaintiff has the burden of proving the reasonable value of services performed. Hoops v. Gateway Food Products, 824 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Mo.App.1991). Expert testimony is required to assist the fact finder in determining reasonableness. Id. Failure to prove reasonable value of the work performed is fatal to a quantum meruit claim. Mills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spry v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...like this one, there is no "verdict" to direct. Roberts v. Wilson, 97 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Mo.App.2002); Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Properties, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Mo.App.1999). As our colleagues in the Western District have In a trial without a jury, the judge is not only the trie......
-
Sanders v. Insurance Co. of N.America
...this motion under the standards set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Properties, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Mrs. Sanders argues that Cigna Ins. Co. was a proper party as an agent, partner, or joint venturer w......
-
Berlin v. Pickett
...v. Brown, 941 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo.App.1997). The standard of review is that of a court-tried case. Kamil, Decker & Co., P.C. v. SMC Props., Inc. 998 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Mo.App.1999); City of Hamilton v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Caldwell County, 849 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Mo.App. ...
-
Aughenbaugh v. Williams
...claim for the court, not the jury, to determine, there was no "verdict" to direct on that claim. Kamil, Decker & Company, P.C. v. SMC Properties, Inc. , 998 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Therefore, regardless of denomination, we treat Taylor’s motion for a directed-verdict as submit......