Timmons v. Bender, WD
| Decision Date | 08 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 601 S.W.2d 688 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ronald L. and Betty J. TIMMONS, Appellants, v. William M. BENDER and Ruby C. Bender and Fred Painter & Co., Respondents. 31108. |
Martin M. Montemore, Timothy H. Bosler, Liberty, for appellants.
C. David Whipple, Julie Lynn Fry, Whipple, Eisler & Kraft, Kansas City, for Benders.
William D. Adkins, Adkins & Capps Law Firm, Liberty, for Fred Painter & Co.
Before TURNAGE, P. J., and SHANGLER and MANFORD, JJ.
The plaintiffs Timmons sued for actual and punitive damages for fraud in a real estate transaction. The defendants Bender as sellers and the defendant Painter as broker move for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had elected the remedy of rescission. The court entered summary judgment on the petition and the plaintiffs appeal.
The motion for judgment was heard by the court on arguments and evidence. The defendants presented the deposition testimony of the parties to support the motion. The plaintiffs rested on the effect of the petition as claims for fraud. The evidence of transaction is not in dispute, but only the legal effect of the conduct as an election by the plaintiffs to rescind the real estate contract and thus as a conclusive choice of remedy.
The plaintiffs contracted to purchase a lot and home from the defendants. They deposited $500 on the transaction with broker Painter. A preliminary title report disclosed that an appropriation of land for a highway right of way encroached upon the boundary lines of the conveyance. When doubt as to the property line became apparent, the plaintiffs attempted to purchase the property at a reduced price. Then, when the defendant sellers refused the extent of reduction, the plaintiff purchasers requested return of the $500 deposit, which was concluded promptly. In addition, the defendants reimbursed to the plaintiffs some $100 for attendant expenses.
The petition of the plaintiffs comes in three counts: each claim pleads fraud and seeks actual and punitive damages, against the sellers Benders, against the broker Painter, and against both the Benders and Painter as conspirators. The gist of the fraud was a misrepresentation by the Benders through agent Painter that they owned the fee to the entire lot (subject of the transaction) when the Benders had already negotiated settlement with the Missouri Highway Department to deed a portion of that land for a right of way. The plaintiffs plead that the fraudulent misrepresentation induced the agreement to the land purchase. In separate answers, each defendant denied the allegations of the claim. In separate crossclaims, each defendant pleaded a liability over against the other defendant in the event of an adverse recovery by the plaintiff.
The appeal contends that the petition pleads a cause of action for fraud and so presents genuine issues of fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment. The petition as a cause of action for fraud becomes irrelevant, however, if at the time of suit the plaintiffs already consummated a remedy inconsistent with the claim of the pleading.
The doctrine of election of remedies precludes a claimant from the aid of a court for recovery upon two contradictory principles from the same matrix of facts. Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959(2-4) (Mo.1951). The doctrine rests upon the policy that a litigant may not insist to the court the truth of inconsistent positions, merely to suit an interest. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 232 Mo.App. 412, 109 S.W.2d 47, 48(3-6) (1937). That rule of estoppel operates only when the claimant follows a repugnant theory of recovery to an ultimate end as by judgment or the intervention of a right. Trimble v. Wollmann, 71 Mo.App. 467, 485 (1897). Thus (Johnson-Brinkman Commission Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 126 Mo. 344, 28 S.W. 870, 872 (1894)):
where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, and he makes his election, and institutes his suit, that in case the action thus begun is prosecuted to final judgment, or the plaintiff has received anything of value under a claim thus asserted, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy. (emphasis added)
An inducement to contract by a fraudulent misrepresentation gives rise to the alternative remedies of rescission or damages for tort. Auffenberg v. Hafley, 457 S.W.2d 929, 935(13-15) (Mo.App.1970). A rescission disaffirms the contract but an action for damages affirms the contract. An action on one theory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.W. Murray Co. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp.
...for fraudulent inducement to enter a contract, and that Missouri clearly recognizes such a cause of action. See, e.g., Timmons v. Bender, 601 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App.1980); Osterberger v. Hites Construction Co., 599 S.W.2d 221 (Mo.App.1980). Generally, claims based on misrepresentation or fraud ......
-
Oldham's Farm Sausage Co. v. Salco, Inc.
...of election of remedies is only applicable when the theories of recovery submitted are inconsistent with each other. Timmons v. Bender, 601 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Mo.App.1980); Austin & Bass Builders, Inc. v. Lewis, 350 S.W.2d 133, 140 (Mo.App.1961). In the present case, the combination of expres......
-
Empire Gas Corp. v. Small's LP Gas Co., s. 12215
... ... Timmons v. Bender, 601 S.W.2d 688, 690(1, 2) (Mo.App.1980). The point is denied ... The point by appellants that Empire's recovery should ... ...
-
Harris v. Union Elec. Co., 70374
...on the contract and a remedy such as reformation or recission, which depends on rejection of the contract as written. Timmons v. Bender, 601 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Mo.App.1980). Where a party having the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies makes an election, institutes suit and prosec......