(ase Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank Missouri Supreme Court (2007) Billy Stevens ow
ID: 2614902 • Letter: #
Question
(ase Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank Missouri Supreme Court (2007) Billy Stevens owned a paint company. On several occasions, he ordered employees to load a trailer with 55-gallon paint drums, and pallets of old paint cans, and dump them on property he owned. This illegal dumping saved Stevens the cost of proper disposal. Later, employees notified the Environmental Protection Agency of what Stevens had done, and the EPA began an investigation. (Stevens later served time for environmental crimes.) Stevens defaulted on his mortgage to the land. While Chase Manhattan Bank was in the process of Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank Missouri Supreme Court (2007) foreclosing, it learned that the EPA was investigating the property for contamination. Chase foreclosed and put the property up for sale "as is." Several buyers expressed interest. The bank did not inform any of them of the ongoing EPA investigation. Dennis Hess bought the property for $52,000. After Hess bought the land, he discovered the illegal waste and sued Chase for failing to disclose the EPA's investigation. The jury awarded Hess $52,000 and Chase appealed What was the Missouri Supreme Court's decision?Explanation / Answer
pinion
Dennis E. Hess (Hess) appeals the circuit court's dismissal on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 55.27(a)(6),*fn1 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, of Count III of his second amended petition, for actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, against the respondent and cross-appellant, Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase), alleging a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MPA), Chapter 407, specifically a violation of Section 407.020.1.*fn2 Hess alleged in Count III that Chase, in violation of Section 407.020.1, failed to disclose the involvement of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the real property Chase sold to him in 1999. Chase cross-appeals the trial court's judgment for Hess, awarding him $52,000 in actual damages on Count II of his second amended petition, alleging common law fraud with respect to the same failure to disclose alleged in Count III.
In his sole point on appeal, Hess claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his MPA count, Count III, pursuant to Rule 55.27(a)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on the basis that the version of Section 407.025.1 of the MPA in effect at thetime of the parties' real estate transaction, providing for a private cause of action for a violation of Section 407.020.1, did not apply to real estate transactions to allow a private cause of action by Hess against Chase, as alleged in Count III. Hess claims that the trial court's dismissal on that basis was error because, inasmuch as Section 407.025.1 is procedural and remedial, rather than substantive, the court, rather than applying the version of Section 407.025.1 in effect at the time of the transaction, should have applied retrospectively the 2000 amended version of Section 407.025.1, which extended its applicationto the parties' 1999 real estate transaction, authorizing a private cause of action by Hess against Chase for an alleged violation of Section 407.020.1. In its sole point on cross-appeal, Chase claims that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the plaintiff's and all the evidence, and its motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict (JNOV), with respect to the judgment for Hess on his fraud count, Count II, because Hess did not make a submissible case on Count III with respect to the requisite proof elements of that claim that Chase owed a duty to Hess to disclose the EPA's involvement with the property it sold to him and that Hess relied on Chase's silence with respect to the EPA's involvement in purchasing the property.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.