Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, WD 78422
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Citation | 504 S.W.3d 804 |
| Docket Number | WD 78422 |
| Parties | STEELHEAD TOWNHOMES, L.L.C., et al., Respondents, v. CLEARWATER 2008 NOTE PROGRAM, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2016 |
504 S.W.3d 804
STEELHEAD TOWNHOMES, L.L.C., et al., Respondents,
v.
CLEARWATER 2008 NOTE PROGRAM, LLC, et al., Appellants.
WD 78422
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
OPINION FILED: September 6, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 1, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied December 20, 2016
Jonathan Sternberg, Kansas City, MO, for Appellants.
Jay Dehardt, Kansas City, MO, Nancy Wilson, Overland Park, KS, for Respondents.
Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge Presiding, James Edward Welsh, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges
James Edward Welsh, Judge
Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, appeals from the circuit court's judgment awarding Steelhead Townhomes, LLC, $650,000 on its claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Clearwater contends that the circuit court erred (1) in entering judgment for Steelhead on its claim for breach of fiduciary duties because, as a lender, Clearwater owed no fiduciary duties to Steelhead as a borrower; (2) in entering judgment for Steelhead on its claim for unjust enrichment because an express contract between the two parties precluded recovery on a claim of unjust enrichment; and (3) in failing to find that Steelhead had breached its contract with Clearwater, entitling Clearwater to a judgment against Steelhead and its guarantors jointly and severally for $304,890.51, plus interest and attorney fees.
As filed in the circuit court, this case involved a 33-count first amended petition and an eight-count first amended counterclaim. Some of the counts were disposed of by the circuit court's judgment, by prior dismissals, or by summary judgment. A few of the counts Steelhead acknowledged were moot and abandoned them on the record before the circuit court at trial. But, a few counts of Steelhead's first amended petition appear to not have been disposed of by the circuit court or abandoned by Steelhead before the circuit court.
Indeed, after Clearwater filed its appeal, we advised Clearwater that it appeared that the circuit court's judgment was not final because the circuit court's judgment may not have disposed of all claims or parties to the action. Clearwater filed joint suggestions with Steelhead in support of the appeal, and Clearwater provided additional briefing on this issue in its appellant's brief. Clearwater asserted that it had jointly stipulated with Steelhead that "under Rule 81.12(f) that any claims or counterclaims not expressly addressed by the trial court's judgment of December 3, 2014, Steelhead's voluntary dismissals dated December 30, 2011, and January 17, 2014, or the summary judgment in favor of Respondent South and Associates dated May 6, 2013, were or hereby abandoned." Further, they claimed that every one of Steelhead's claims and Clearwater's counterclaims were disposed of by the circuit court's judgment, prior dismissals, summary judgment, or by abandonment. Finally, they claimed that, if this court decided that the judgment was not final because of a failure to dispose of all claims, it would be a poor use of judicial economy because "[i]t would create an unnecessary burden and expense on the parties, this Court, and the trial court" and because "[t]he parties would have to go back to the trial court, have the trial court enter a new judgment only changed by expressly denying the abandoned claims, [and] re-appeal."
Thus, before we can even address the merits of this appeal, we have a duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the appeal. Gerken v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 415 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Mo.App.2013). " ‘A prerequisite to appellate review is that there be a final judgment.’ " Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo.banc 1997) (citation omitted). In the absence of a final judgment, this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howe v. Heartland Midwest, LLC
...Dougherty v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 585 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC , 504 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ); see also Rule 74.01(b). If a judgment is not final, section 512.020(5) cannot be relied on......
-
Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC
...misrepresentation against Clearwater, and equitable estoppel." Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC , 504 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). On remand, the parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of the claims which this Court had found were unresol......
-
Dougherty v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Services
...the case and leaves nothing for future determination."1 585 S.W.3d 359 Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC , 504 S.W.3d 804, 805-06 (Mo. App. 2016). "Any judgment as to fewer than all claims or all parties does not end the action, which makes it subject to the t......
-
MJDZ, L.L.C. v. De La Cruz
...which makes it subject to the trial court's revision at any time until final judgment.’ " Steelhead Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC , 504 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). Rule 74.01(b) sets forth an exception to the rule requiring that the judgment dispose of all......