Lee v. Investors Title Co.
Decision Date | 04 December 2007 |
Docket Number | No. ED 89042.,ED 89042. |
Citation | 241 S.W.3d 366 |
Parties | Helen LEE, Shane Hu, and Kevin Huang, Appellants, v. INVESTORS TITLE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen C. Banton, Gregory F. Quinn, Manchester, MO, for appellant.
Joseph V. Keady, Jr., Clayton, MO, for respondent.
In this consolidated appeal, Helen Lee, Shane Hu, and Kevin Huang (hereinafter and collectively, "Buyers") appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Investors Title Company (hereinafter, "Title Company"). Title Company cross-appeals, seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment denying it an award of attorneys' fees. We affirm in part, reverse and remand in part.
Buyers raise four points on appeal. Their first two points challenge the trial court's dismissal of Counts VI and VIII of their second amended petition. Their third point argues the trial court erred in granting Title Company summary judgment on Count V of the second amended petition. Buyers' fourth point argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Buyers leave to amend and submit a fourth amended petition.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file with respect to Buyers' four points on appeal. The trial court's judgment is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record, and we find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law with respect to Buyers' points would have no precedential value. Buyers have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). However, we reverse and remand the judgment with respect to the trial court's failure to award Title Company attorneys' fees.
Title Company cross-appeals, raising one point of error. Title Company argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied its request for attorneys' fees because the escrow agreement was enforced in its favor and therefore, required such an award. Alternatively, Title Company claims it was entitled to attorneys' fees because the trial court granted its request to interplead the escrow money, and as a stakeholder, it should have been awarded fees.
In Missouri, litigants generally bear the expense of their own attorneys' fees as provided in the American Rule. City of Cottleville v. St. Charles County, 91 S.W.3d 148, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Attorneys' fees may be recovered, however, if the circumstances arise from one of the following categories: (1) recovery pursuant to a contract or provided by statute; (2) recovery as damages in collateral litigation; or (3) reimbursement to balance the benefits. Wyper v. Camden County, 160 S.W.3d 850, 854 (Mo.App. S.D.2005).
Title Company argues it is entitled to recovery of its attorneys' fees pursuant to a contract, specifically, the escrow agreement entered into by the parties. The escrow agreement entered into between Buyers, Kinder Construction, Inc. (hereinafter, "Builder") and Title Company contains two provisions regarding attorneys' fees. The provision relevant to this appeal provides as follows:
In consideration thereof and as inducement therefore, said parties do hereby jointly and severally indemnify and hold [Title Company] harmless of and from any and all loss, cost, damage and expense of every kind including attorneys' fees, which [Title Company] shall or may suffer or incur or become liable for under its said policy ... on a ... claim or in connection with its enforcement of its rights under this Agreement, unless and except to the extent that any such lien or claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMullen v. Kutz
..."entitled to all attorneys' fees resulting from this litigation, as a plain reading of the contract provides"); Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) ("The decision to award attorney's fees is not a matter of discretion in this situation and failure to do so is er......
-
MONARCH FIRE PROTECTION v. FREEDOM CONSULTING, Case No. 4:08CV01424 ERW.
...by statute; (2) recovery as damages in collateral litigation; or (3) reimbursement to balance the benefits." Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 367 (Mo.Ct.App.2007). Under the first exception, Missouri courts do not retain any discretion in deciding whether to award attorneys' fees......
-
Frontenac Bank v. GB Invs., LLC, ED 104163.
...fees from the other litigant when the terms of the parties' contract provides for the fees. See id. ; Lee v. Investors Title Co ., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ; see also Kansas City Live Block 139 Retail, LLC v. Fran's K.C. Ltd , 504 S.W.3d 725, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ("even ......
-
Monarch Fire Prot. Dist. of St. Louis County v. Freedom Consulting & Auditing Serv. Inc.
...a party to recover attorneys' fees incurred in an action asserting its rights under the contract. Id.; see also Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (holding that a trial court must award attorneys' fees when an indemnity clause expressly provides for an award of......
-
Section 18 Illustrative Cases
...e.g., Essex Contracting Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 277 S.W.3d 647, 657 (Mo. banc 2009) (implied indemnity); Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (breach of escrow agreement containing indemnification provision).Recovery in these cases is limited to fees incurre......
-
Section 30 Who Determines Attorney Fees—
...attorneys’ fees, it has no discretion in complying with terms of attorneys’ fees made by contract.”)· Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (“If a contract provides for the payment of attorney’s fees in the enforcement of a contract provision, the trial court ......
-
Section 6 Attorney Fees Provided for by Contract
...instruments. See, e.g.:· Simpson v. Simpson, 295 S.W.3d 199, 210 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (promissory note)· Lee v. Investors Title Co., 241 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (escrow agreement)· Parks v. MBNA Am. Bank, 204 S.W.3d 305 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (settlement agreement)While the amoun......