Opinion ID: 1657369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Summary Judgment on Evert's Counterclaims

Text: Evert, in his amended answer, raises counterclaims against ITT [3] and Mercantile claiming that their agents' misrepresentations had fraudulently induced him to sign the guaranties. A counterclaim, authorized by Rule 55.01, has the nature and effect of an independent action by the defendant against the plaintiff. Buchweiser v. Estate of Laberer, 695 S.W.2d 125, 129 (Mo. banc 1985). Nothing is a counterclaim which is not a cause of action or a cross demand, and that does not contain the substance necessary to sustain an action by defendant against the plaintiff, if the plaintiff had not sued the defendant. McPherson v. Meek, 30 Mo. 245 (1860). A cause of action which wholely defeats the demand of the plaintiff cannot be a counterclaim. James v. Moore, 42 Mo. 413 (1868). Evert's counterclaims of fraudulent inducement are nothing more than his affirmative defenses restated. In his counterclaims, he alleges damages in the form of litigation expenses, damage to his credit rating and increased interest charged by creditors. We need not decide whether Evert would be entitled to these types of consequential damages had he been successful in defending plaintiffs' suit on the guaranties. Because we affirm the summary judgments in favor of ITT and Mercantile on the guaranties, that disposition necessarily disposes of Evert's counterclaims. Therefore, we affirm the summary judgments granted to ITT and Mercantile on Evert's counterclaims. See Rule 55.08. [4]