Traweek v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 83291 |
| Citation | 607 S.W.3d 779 |
| Parties | Tiffany TRAWEEK, Appellant, v. Timothy SMITH and Davis & Bell Auction Service, L.L.C., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Edward A. Williams, Kansas City for appellant.
Molly B. Bartalos, Kansas City for respondent.
Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Thomas N. Chapman, Judges
Tiffany Traweek appeals from the summary judgment granted in favor of Timothy Smith and Davis & Bell Auction Service, LLC (collectively, "Respondents") on her amended petition for damages. Traweek contends that summary judgment was premature because the circuit court did not allow her sufficient time to conduct discovery on her reformation claim. She also argues that the court's summary judgment did not address her reformation claim. Because the court abused its discretion by not allowing Traweek an adequate period of discovery on her reformation claim, summary judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
On June 30, 2016, Traweek was a passenger in the back seat of a car driven by her friend, Erika Johnson. Johnson's car collided with the rear of a trailer attached to a vehicle, which was owned by Davis & Bell Auction Service, LLC, and driven by Smith. As a result of this accident, Traweek was rendered unconscious, was in a coma for two months, and suffered severe head trauma and loss of memory and cognitive skills.
Prior to retaining counsel, Traweek received an offer from Johnson's insurance carrier, Missouri Farm Bureau Insurance Company ("Farm Bureau"), to settle her claims against Johnson for the full policy limits. Traweek retained counsel. Traweek's counsel contacted Respondents’ insurance carrier, State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm"), and demanded to settle Traweek's claims against Respondents for the full policy limits. State Farm denied this demand. On October 25, 2017, Traweek filed a petition against Respondents seeking damages for the injuries she suffered in the accident.
On November 1, 2017, Traweek executed a release prepared by Farm Bureau. The language of the release stated, in pertinent part:
For the Sole Consideration of Fifty Thousand & 00/100 Dollars ($50,000.00) , the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby releases and forever discharges Tonya Schoen & Erica Johnson & John Lamar [,]1 heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, estates, agents, insurers, successors and assigns, and all other persons, firms or corporations liable, or who might be claimed to be liable , none of whom admit any liability to the undersigned but all expressly deny any liability, from any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, future medical expenses, property damage or damage of any kind sustained or that I may hereafter sustain, known and unknown, both to person and to property, which have resulted or may in the future develop from an accident which occurred on or about the 30th day of June, 2016 at or near Johnson County, Missouri.
(Emphasis added in italics.) Traweek is the only party who signed the release. Traweek's mother and father signed the release as witnesses on the same day and at the same time as Traweek. Traweek recalled reading the portion of the release quoted above but did not realize that she was signing a document that said she was releasing all other persons from liability for the accident. Before Traweek signed the release, Traweek's counsel advised her that she was releasing only Johnson and not Respondents.2 After Traweek signed the release, Farm Bureau paid her the $50,000 policy limits.
Traweek produced the release to Respondents during the course of discovery on August 8, 2018. Shortly thereafter, on August 20, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to assert the affirmative defense that Traweek's claims in her petition were barred because she had already released Respondents for any claims arising out of the accident. The court granted Respondents leave to file their amended answer.
Upon learning of the language in the original release that could be construed to release Traweek's claims against Respondents, Traweek's counsel contacted the Farm Bureau insurance adjuster and requested an affidavit to set forth the intent of Farm Bureau with regard to whether any other parties besides its insureds were to be released. According to the sworn affidavit of Traweek's counsel, the adjuster admitted that the release was intended to release only Johnson, but the adjuster was not willing to assist Traweek's counsel "in correcting this situation."
On September 24, 2018, Traweek executed a corrected partial release, which was similar to the original release in that it released Johnson, Schoen, Lamar, and their heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, estates, agents, insurers, successors, and assigns, but it did not contain the language releasing "all other persons, firms or corporations liable, or who might be claimed to be liable." Again, Traweek was the only party who executed the corrected partial release, and her father and her aunt signed as witnesses. Traweek's counsel mailed the corrected partial release to Farm Bureau in October 2018 and did not receive any response from Farm Bureau. In January 2019, Traweek's counsel hand-delivered the corrected partial release to Respondents’ counsel.
Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on February 26, 2019, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrated that Traweek executed a release that released any claims she may have arising out of the June 30, 2016 accident, including the claim asserted against Respondents in her petition. Respondents further argued that the corrected partial release did not reflect a mutual mistake that would support reformation of the original release. This was the sole ground upon which Respondents sought summary judgment.
On April 9, 2019, Traweek filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition to add a second count in equity seeking reformation of the original release. In the reformation claim in her proposed amended petition, Traweek alleged that she never intended to release anyone but Johnson and the owners of Johnson's vehicle, and that this intent was "clearly indicated by her filing of a lawsuit against [Respondents] prior to her execution of [the original release], and her execution of [the original release] clearly constitutes a mistake." Traweek alleged that the corrected partial release "correctly sets forth the intent of the parties to the Johnson claim and should be used to reform the original Release ... to conform to the intent of the parties." She contended that reformation of the original release was justified based upon a mutual mistake because there was never an agreement to release any person other than Johnson and the owners of Johnson's vehicle. Respondents did not file any pleading objecting to or opposing Traweek's motion for leave to amend her petition to add the reformation claim.
Traweek also filed suggestions in opposition to Respondents’ summary judgment motion. In her suggestions, she again asserted her argument that there was a mutual mistake that justified reformation of the original release. Traweek argued that summary judgment would be premature at that time and invoked Rule 74.04(f), which provides that the court can order the continuance of a summary judgment motion under certain circumstances. To support her contention that summary judgment would be premature at that time, she attached her counsel's affidavit explaining that the Farm Bureau adjuster admitted to him that the release was intended to release only Johnson but that Farm Bureau was unwilling to help counsel correct it. Traweek stated that, if the court granted her leave to amend her petition to include a count for reformation, she intended to depose Farm Bureau and would need time to do so.
In their reply, Respondents noted that Traweek was represented by counsel when she executed the original release and that both of her parents were with her and signed the release as witnesses. Respondents argued that, under Missouri law, they, as non-settling tortfeasors, fell under the scope of the original release and, therefore, were intended beneficiaries of the original release. As for Traweek's intention to depose Farm Bureau to establish a mutual mistake, Respondents asserted that Farm Bureau did not sign the original release and was not a party to this case. Respondent argued that Traweek could demonstrate, at most, unilateral mistake and not mutual mistake, which is necessary to support reformation of the original release.
The court held a hearing on Respondents’ summary judgment motion on July 2, 2019. At the start of the hearing, the court took up Traweek's motion for leave to file her first amended petition to add a reformation claim. Respondents stated that they did not object to the motion because their motion for summary judgment encompassed the reformation argument as set forth in the pleadings, and they intended to argue that the undisputed evidence would show that there was no evidence to support a reformation claim. The court granted Traweek's motion for leave to file her amended petition.
The court then heard arguments from both parties concerning the enforceability of the original release and whether the corrected partial release constituted a reformation of the original release. Traweek argued that it was too early to grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment considering that she had just been granted leave during the hearing to file an amended petition to raise her reformation claim. She explained that she needed time to conduct discovery on her reformation claim to determine if Farm Bureau was mistaken as to the nature and extent of the original release, because it appeared that Farm Bureau had...
To continue reading
Request your trial