Preview:

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
DIVISION TWO MARQUIS FINANCIAL SERVICES OF INDIANA INC., d/b/a MARQUIS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. FREDERICK J. PEET, JR., Defendant/Appellant, and STEVEN W. KOSLOVSKY, and STEVE KOSLOVSKY, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. ED96678 Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable Mark D. Seigel Date: March 27, 2012

Plaintiff, Marquis Financial Services (Marquis), filed a lawsuit against defendant Frederick J. Peet, Jr., M.D., and his attorney. After the claims against Dr. Peet's attorney were disposed of by dismissal and summary judgment, the case was submitted against Dr. Peet alone on theories of fraud (Count VII) and unjust enrichment (Count VI). The jury returned verdicts in Marquis's favor. The jury assessed $0 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages on the fraud count. The jury assessed $431,034.14 in actual damages and $38,793.07 in interest on the unjust enrichment count. The trial court entered judgment for Marquis in the amounts of $431,034.14 in actual damages, $38,793.07 in interest, and $500,000 in punitive damages. We reverse the award of punitive damages and remand for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud count. In all other respects, we affirm.

DISCUSSION I. Preservation of Error Dr. Peet's first five points on appeal each claim error in the denial of his Motion for Directed Verdict and Motion for JNOV 1 or, in the alternative, a New Trial. His sixth point asserts error in the denial of his Motion in Limine and Motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, a New Trial. We first consider whether all of these points are preserved for review. A. Error in Denial of Motions for Directed Verdict and JNOV/New Trial "The purpose of motions for directed verdict and JNOV is to 'challenge the submissibility of the plaintiff's case.'" Newell Rubbermaid v. Efficient Solutions, 252 S.W.3d 164, 170

(Mo.App. 2007) (quoting Coon v. Dryden, 46 S.W.3d 81, 88 (Mo.App. 2001)). "'A case is not to be submitted to the jury unless each fact essential to liability is predicated upon legal and substantial evidence.'" Newell Rubbermaid, 252 S.W.3d at 170 (quoting Coon, 46 S.W.3d at 88)). Rule 72.01(a) requires a motion for a directed verdict to "state the specific grounds therefore." If a motion for directed verdict fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 72.01(a), then it "neither presents a basis for relief in the trial court nor preserves the issue in the appellate court." Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772, 790 (Mo. banc 2011); see also Pope v. Pope, 179 S.W.3d 442, 451 (Mo.App. 2005)(en banc); Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp., 975 S.W.2d 155, 163

Download ed96678.pdf

Missouri Law