Walker v. Hanke
| Decision Date | 01 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | WD55559 |
| Citation | 992 S.W.2d 925 |
| Parties | Joseph E. Walker, Respondent, v. Pamela Jo and Karl Hanke, Appellants. WD55559 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jack E. Gant
Opinion Summary: Pamela Jo and Karl Hanke appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Respondent, Joseph Walker, on his claims for conversion, false imprisonment, punitive damages and injunctive relief. The Hankes claim the trial court erred: (1) in finding that they converted $180,000 belonging to Mr. Walker because the money was a gift to Pamela Jo; (2) in refusing to dismiss Karl from the lawsuit because insufficient evidence supported the claims against him; (3) in refusing to admit evidence as to Mr. Walker's failure to pay certain creditors, because, they allege, he fraudulently transferred the money to Pamela Jo to avoid those creditors; (4) in granting injunctive relief to Mr. Walker because the award of money damages was an adequate remedy at law; (5) in finding in favor of Mr. Walker for false imprisonment because he was not intentionally restrained; and (6) in awarding punitive damages because there was no evidence of malice.
Division Two holds: The trial court did not err in finding Mr. Walker never intended to make a gift of the $180,000, and that both Pamela Jo and Karl Hanke converted these funds to their own person use. Conversion is the unauthorized assumption of the right of ownership over personal property of another to the exclusion of the owner's rights, or the refusal to return money properly obtained. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the court's ruling, and this court defers to the trial court's broad discretion in resolving the credibility issues between the two conflicting stories.
The trial court did not err in awarding the $180,000 to Mr. Walker and finding he did not transfer the money to Pamela Jo in order to defraud his creditors. The Hankes introduced evidence to show Mr. Walker put the money in Pamela Jo's name so that he could avoid his creditors. The trial court's resolution of this issue turned on credibility. There was sufficient evidence offered by Mr. Walker and his attorney that he was not attempting to defraud creditors when he put the money in Pamela Jo's name.
The trial court did not err in issuing an injunction to preserve the remainder of the funds converted by the Hankes. The primary purpose of an injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff pending disposition of the case on the merits. Although injunctive relief is usually not available if the party has an adequate remedy at law by way of damages, equity may protect a fund in controversy pending the determination of the controversy, where there is danger that the fund will be lost or dissipated. Here, the trial court did not enjoin the Hankes from spending just any money; it enjoined them from spending the remainder of the specific money belonging to Mr. Walker which they converted, and ordered it paid into court in partial satisfaction of the money judgment rendered against them by the court. In light of the Hankes found tendency to spend the money and their failure to account for their past expenditures, the decision was permissible and a wise use of the court's powers.
The trial court erred in finding Mr. Walker was intentionally held by the Hankes against his will. False imprisonment occurs when there is confinement without legal justification. The elements of false imprisonment are the restraint of the plaintiff against his or her will and the unlawfulness of the restraint. Although the evidence showed the Hankes denied other people access to Mr. Walker while he was in their home, there was no evidence that they would not have let him leave their home if he had tried to do so. Therefore, the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Mr. Walker on his false imprisonment claim, and the portion of the judgment granting him actual and punitive damages on the claim is reversed. The case is also remanded so that the court may consider Mr. Walker's alternate claim for outrageous conduct, should he choose to purse it on remand.
The trial court did not err in awarding Mr. Walker punitive damages on his conversion claim. Punitive damages are appropriately awarded when a person intentionally converts property with an evil motive or with reckless indifference to the rights of others. There was substantial evidence on the facts of this case to support the court's award of punitive damages as to both Karl and Pamela Jo Hanke.
Defendants-Appellants Pamela Jo and Karl Hanke appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Respondent, Joseph E. Walker, on his claims for conversion, false imprisonment, punitive damages and injunctive relief. The Hankes claim the trial court erred: 1) in finding that they converted $180,000 belonging to Mr. Walker because the money was a gift to Pamela Jo; 2) in refusing to dismiss Karl from the lawsuit because insufficient evidence supported the claims against him; 3) in refusing to admit evidence as to Mr. Walker's failure to pay certain creditors because, they alleged, he fraudulently transferred the money to Pamela Jo to avoid those creditors; 4) in granting injunctive relief to Mr. Walker because the award of money damages was an adequate remedy at law; 5) in finding in favor of Mr. Walker for false imprisonment because he was not intentionally restrained; and 6) in awarding punitive damages because there was no evidence of malice.
On November 25, 1995, Mr. Walker called his daughter, Pamela Jo Hanke, to tell her he was getting a divorce from his current wife. At his request, Pamela Jo came to North Carolina, where Mr. Walker lived, and brought him back to her home in Kansas City, Missouri. Because of a medical condition, Mr. Walker could not walk and needed assistance. Although Mr. Walker did not get along well with Pamela Jo's husband, Karl Hanke, he moved in with the Hankes the following month, and he gave his daughter power of attorney to handle his business affairs.
Not long after Mr. Walker began living with his daughter, he received approximately $30,000 in his divorce settlement, $25,000 of which he placed into a joint account in his and his daughter's name. Mr. Walker used part of the money he received in the divorce settlement to convert the Hankes' lower level into an apartment in which he could live.On March 18, 1996, Mr. Walker was involved in a serious automobile accident. Pamela Jo was at her father's bedside and helped nurse him back to health. After a lengthy hospital stay, Mr. Walker returned to live with the Hankes. At his request, some of the remaining funds from his divorce settlement were used to remodel the Hankes' home to make it handicap accessible. This enabled him to enter and leave through a separate wheelchair accessible entrance in the yard. At Mr. Walker's request, the Hankes also put a fence with a gate around their yard.
Pamela Jo continued to care for her father, and took an active role in proceeding with his personal injury lawsuit, including finding her father a personal injury lawyer, Pat Starke. In November 1996, Mr. Walker settled his personal injury claim for approximately $900,000. According to Mr. Walker's attorney, Mr. Starke, Mr. Walker was directly paid only $243,000; the remainder of the settlement proceeds were used to pay Mr. Walker's attorney's fees and expenses as well as to pay off other bills. This included payment of Mr. Walker's medical bills from St. Joseph's hospital pursuant to an agreement which Mr. Starke had worked out with the hospital. Because Mr. Walker was concerned that IRS tax liens might exist against him, Mr. Starke also checked to see whether any such liens existed, and determined that they did not at the time of the settlement.
Mr. Walker put his share of the settlement funds into an account in Pamela Jo's name. Pamela Jo testified Mr. Walker did this so he could keep the funds out of the hands of his creditors, and she also testified, rather inconsistently, that he did so because he wanted to make a gift to her of the money. Mr. Walker testified that he never intended to make a gift of the money to her, but admitted that he did not want to have the cash in his name, even though he did not agree that he was trying to avoid paying his creditors. And, as noted, Mr. Starke testified that the health care providers and Medicare personnel knew that he represented Mr. Walker in the personal injury lawsuit and would have contacted him if there were any problems with bills or liens, but that he was aware of none, and all known creditors were paid out of the remainder of the $900,000 in settlement funds.
Mr. Walker testified that from the day he received his $243,000 portion of the settlement, the Hankes badgered him about it, saying he needed to get the money into an account bearing a high interest rate. Karl Hanke is in the insurance business. Karl and Pamela Jo told Mr. Walker that they were going to purchase annuities on his behalf, and Karl stated that he would cut his commission so Mr. Walker could earn more interest. At their insistence, Mr. Walker allowed them to buy two $90,000 annuities from a California company with $180,000 of the settlement money. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that he could live off the interest from these annuities, and that he could get the interest every year without affecting the principal.
Mr. Walker told Pamela Jo that he wanted to give her $25,000 for keeping and caring for him in 1997. Pamela Jo replied that she would just write checks out of his checkbook periodically instead. However, when Mr. Walker noticed Pamela Jo had spent $10,000 in 18 days, he asked her to take the $15,000 balance and open her own account...
To continue reading
Request your trial