McFarland v. Union Finance Co., 25615
| Decision Date | 07 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25615,25615 |
| Citation | 471 S.W.2d 497 |
| Parties | Charles B. McFARLAND, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNION FINANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
George M. Hare, Hare & Truman, Independence, Sherman L. Gibson, Hogsett, Shaffer & Gibson, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
Graham, Paden, Welch & Martin, Michael J. Albano, Independence, for plaintiff-respondent.
FLOYD L. SPERRY, Special Commissioner.
Plaintiff sued Union Finance Company, a small loan company, for damages growing out of a suit filed by defendant against plaintiff wherein defendant sought a judgment for $600.00, balance alleged to be due and unpaid on a note executed by plaintiff McFarland as co-signer with one Lonnie Lane. McFarland denied having co-signed the note. Plaintiff dismissed the suit without prejudice. Plaintiff McFarland then filed this suit, alleging malicious prosecution. Union Finance counterclaimed on the note above mentioned. Trial to a jury resulted in a unanimous verdict in favor of plaintiff, on all counts, in the sum of $250.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages. From the resulting judgment, defendant appeals.
Plaintiff was a resident of Jackson County, Missouri. He had been an over-the-road truck driver for many years. Lonnie Lane is his wife's nephew, and, in 1967, he lived at Bolivar, Missouri. He was in need of employment and Lonnie's relatives asked plaintiff if he could help him find employment in the Kansas City area. At plaintiff's invitation, Lonnie and his wife moved into plaintiff's home, while seeking employment. Plaintiff's wife and two younger daughters were, at that time, living in the home of plaintiff's mother who was ill. Eventually, Lonnie secured employment with a lawyer, who officed in the building in which defendant's business was located, and who was an attorney for defendant. He also had some employment with a detective agency operated by the brother-in-law of defendant's office manager, Mr. Spillman.
The evidence was that on December 27, 1967, Lonnie asked Mr. Spillman for a loan. He was told that he would need a co-signer. Lonnie stated that plaintiff would co-sign for him. Spillman made a credit check of plaintiff and found his credit good at the two agencies checked. Spillman prepared a note for $900.00, payable over two and one-half years, ($600.00 was for Lonnie and $300.00 was for interest); Lonnie signed the note and was told by Spillman to have plaintiff execute it and bring it back. Lonnie returned the note bearing his and his wife's signature and, purportedly, that of plaintiff. Lonnie was given a check for $600.00, which he cashed. He paid installments thereon, totaling $330.00 and then became delinquent.
Mr. Spillman did not contact plaintiff prior to issuing the check, but simply accepted as true Lonnie's statement that the note bore plaintiff's signature. On September 13, 1968, defendant first notified plaintiff that he was a co-signer on this note, that payments thereon were in default, and demanded that plaintiff pay. Plaintiff and his wife went promptly to defendant's place of business, examined the note and told defendant's agent that the signature was not his. He signed his name a number of times and furnished said sample signatures to defendant. He also executed an affidavit wherein he denied that the signature was his. Defendant's agent examined the various sample signatures, compared them with the one on the note, and said that 'they don't match up'. On January 6, 1969, defendant instituted suit against plaintiff. Plaintiff's attorney informed defendant's officers that he had known plaintiff for a long time, that he was of good character, and that he had not signed the note. The trial date was January 31st, and, on that date, or the day before, defendant dismissed the suit without prejudice. This suit followed.
Plaintiff testified to the effect that Lonnie asked him to co-sign a note for him and that he refused to do so because Lonnie's grandfather and uncle had each been compelled to pay notes which they had co-signed for Lonnie. There was testimony by plaintiff and Mrs. McFarland from which the jury could have found that plaintiff suffered humiliation and shame, and damage to his credit standing by reason of having been sued by defendant; and the jury could have believed, from the testimony of Mr. Spillman, that plaintiff's general credit rating, which was good in December, 1967, would not be considered as good by credit and lending agencies, if they had knowledge of the filing of this suit by defendant.
Since the verdict in this case was for plaintiff and motion for new trial was overruled, the evidence herein is to be viewed, on appeal, in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and we will give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom in his favor. Huffstutler v. Coates, Mo.Sup., 355 S.W.2d 70, 73; Hughes v. Aetna Insurance Co., Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 942, 945.
No point is made that the verdict for actual, or for punitive damages, is excessive. Plaintiff testified to the effect that, when he was served with summons in the suit on the note, he employed counsel for a fee of $250.00. Mr. Spillman testified to the effect that the net worth of defendant was about $3,000,000.00; that plaintiff's credit was good in December, 1967, and that the filing of this suit would adversely affect plaintiff's credit with lending agencies and credit bureaus; that his credit would not, as a result thereof, be as good as it had been.
The constitutive elements of an action for malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or prosecution of the proceedings against the present plaintiff; (2) its legal causation by the present defendant; (3) its termination in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (5) the presence of malice therein; and (6) damage to plaintiff by reason thereof. Hughes v. Aetna Insurance Co., Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 942, 945; Huffstutler v. Coates, Mo.Sup., 335 S.W.2d 70, 73.
Here, Nos. 1 and 2 clearly appear, as does No. 6. However, defendant contends that, since defendant voluntarily dismissed the suit on the note, without prejudice, it cannot be said that the litigation was terminated in plaintiff's favor. It is contended, in effect, that, since defendant may, at some future date, even several years from now, again sue plaintiff on this note, it cannot be said that the proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. Muster
...of malice therein; and (6) damage by reason thereof. Huffstutler v. Coates, 335 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Mo.1960); McFarland v. Union Finance Co., 471 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1971). As to the habeas corpus proceeding and writ of attachment, the petition clearly alleges facts satisfying these three re......
-
Young v. Jack Boring's, Inc.
...whom they are brought. Woods v. Standard Personal Loan Plan, Inc., 420 S.W.2d 380, 383(2) (Mo.App.1967); McFarland v. Union Finance Company, 471 S.W.2d 497, 499(3) (Mo.App.1971); Houska v. Frederick, 447 S.W.2d 514, 518(2, 3) It is the contention of the defendant Boring's that, as a matter ......
-
Haswell v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...the court as to whether probable cause existed, citing Dodson v. MFA Insurance Co., 509 S.W.2d 461, 467 (Mo.1974); McFarland v. Union Finance Co., 471 S.W.2d 497 (Mo.App.1971); and Woods v. Standard Personal Loan Plan, Inc., 420 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.1967), and that a verdict in their favor sh......
-
Mecey v. City of Farmington
...670, 675 (Mo. 1979) (en banc) (emphasis added) (citing Huffstutler v. Coates, 335 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Mo. 1960); McFarland v. Union Fin. Co., 471 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971)). Clearly, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint states that Plaintiff Robin Mecey was found guilty of the charges ag......