Opinion ID: 1773312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meyer's Appeal

Text: Meyer argues correctly that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Oak Bluff on Count II for civil conspiracy. A civil conspiracy is an agreement or understanding between persons to do an unlawful act, or to use unlawful means to do a lawful act. Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 245 (Mo.1997). In Missouri, if tortious acts alleged as elements of a civil conspiracy claim fail to state a cause of action, then the conspiracy claim fails as well. Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996). The conspirators must have a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement. Chmieleski v. City Products Corp., 660 S.W.2d 275, 290 (Mo.App.1983). A claim of conspiracy must establish: (1) two or more persons; (2) with an unlawful objective; (3) after a meeting of the minds; (4) committed at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and, (5) the plaintiff was thereby damaged. Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. banc 1996). In this case, Oak Bluff alleged that Meyer and Luepke acted together and agreed to deny Oak Bluff's right to redeem unless Oak Bluff paid Meyer's attorneys' fees to Lewis, Rice. Oak Bluff further alleged that Oak Bluff's tender of payment to redeem  not including attorneys' feeswas refused and that Meyer continued to threaten foreclosure. Oak Bluff also alleged damages. However, Oak Bluff has not proved, nor can Oak Bluff prove, that Meyer committed an unlawful act by refusing to allow Oak Bluff to redeem without paying Meyer's attorneys' fees. Under the deed of trust, Oak Bluff conveyed real property in trust as security for an obligation to Meyer. By the terms of the deed of trust, Meyer would release the lien on Oak Bluff's property when Oak Bluff fully satisfied the obligation to Meyer. However, if Oak Bluff defaulted on its obligation, at Meyer's discretion the trustee could foreclose on the property and sell it absolutely, using the proceeds to satisfy Oak Bluff's obligation and to pay the costs of the foreclosure. Under section 443.400, once Oak Bluff defaulted and the trustee began to foreclose, Oak Bluff could stop the foreclosure proceedings by paying Meyer the full obligation. Section 443.400. When Meyer received full satisfaction, he was required to release the lien and clear Oak Bluff's title to the property. Section 443.060. However, Meyer's duty to provide the deed of release did not arise until Oak Bluff had paid full satisfaction to Meyer. The threshold issue, then, is whether the payment of full satisfaction includes payment of attorneys' fees. The conditions of performance of the deed of trust are according to the integral terms of the debt instrument and the deed of trust. Tipton v. Holt, 610 S.W.2d 659 (Mo.App.1981). In this case, the deed of trust provides, in pertinent part: 4. Payment of Contract Debt. Grantor [Oak Bluff] shall promptly pay when due all amounts required under the Settlement Agreement and Consulting Agreement and this Deed of Trust, and shall perform all covenants in this Deed of Trust. ... 12. Costs of Enforcement. Grantor [Oak Bluff] agrees to the extent permitted by law, to pay all costs, expenditures and expenses which may be paid or incurred by or on behalf of Trustee for attorneys' fees, appraisers' fees, publication costs and costs of procuring all abstracts of title, title searches and examination, title insurance policies, tax and lien searches, and similar data and assurances with respect to title as Beneficiary or Trustee may deem to be reasonably necessary either to prosecute the foreclosure or to evidence to bidders at any sale. All such expenses shall become additional indebtedness secured hereby and shall be immediately due and payable. Oak Bluff contends that in this case the settlement agreement is the equivalent of a note in the normal financial arrangement. The documents do not support this contention. The settlement agreement and the consulting agreement both reference the deed of trust. The deed of trust provides that its provisions are secured by the deed of trust. In light of all the documents entered into by the parties, the equivalent of a note is all three documents; i.e., the settlement agreement, consulting agreement, and the deed of trust. The terms agreed to by the parties include payment of the attorneys' fees along with the other amounts due under the deed of trust. All such amounts were required to be tendered in order to pay full satisfaction to Meyer. Meyer was under no obligation to execute a deed of release until he received satisfaction under the deed of trust freely entered into between the parties. Oak Bluff contends that requiring the payment of attorneys' fees is contrary to Leone v. Bear, 362 Mo. 464, 241 S.W.2d 1008 (Mo.1951); Mills v. 1 st Nat. Bank of Mexico, 661 S.W.2d 808 (Mo.App.1983); and Tipton . All three cases are distinguishable; each involves a note secured by a deed of trust. In Leone , the notes did not refer to the deed of trust and contained no acceleration clause. In Mills, the court found that the deed of trust did not set out the terms of the note, which contained no acceleration clause. Further, the note did not impose the obligation of attorneys' fees on the maker of the collection of the debt. Mills at 813. In Tipton , the payment of attorneys' fees became an obligation only if the note was collected by suit or foreclosure, which could only occur after the time of redemption. Tipton at 661. Oak Bluff also relies on dicta in Tipton to argue that a requirement to pay reasonable attorneys' fees conflicts with the right of redemption. Even if the dicta were accurate, it does not apply in this case. Paragraph 12 of the deed of trust, quoted above, clearly defines the attorneys' fees due as those fees paid or incurred as the Beneficiary or Trustee may deem to be reasonably necessary. This amount is not indefinite but is defined at any given point by the beneficiary or trustee. The integral provisions of the debt instrument and deed of trust require the payment of attorneys' fees paid or incurred prior to the sale. Oak Bluff argues that the deed of trust did not provide for the payment of Meyer's attorneys' fees, but only for the payment of the trustee's attorneys' fees. It also argues that paragraph 11 of the deed of trust is the applicable provision and requires the attorneys' fees to be paid from the proceeds of the sale. These arguments are without merit. Paragraph 12 is the applicable provision. Although Oak Bluff argues the deed of trust only provides for the payment of the trustee's attorneys' fees, the deed of trust provides that if Oak Bluff defaulted on its obligation to pay Meyer, Oak Bluff would pay not only the trustee's attorneys' fees, but also the attorneys' fees paid on behalf of the trustee. Nothing in the record shows that the attorneys' fees in question did not result from the foreclosure proceedings and Meyer's defense against Oak Bluff's declaratory judgment action and motion for temporary restraining order. Moreover, if Oak Bluff desired to contest the amount of attorneys' fees, or contest whether the deed of trust required Oak Bluff to pay such fees, Oak Bluff could have sought judicial determination of the amount necessary to redeem the property. Instead, Oak Bluff filed for declaratory judgment and injunction against Meyer in August 1996, attempting to prevent the foreclosure and failed to argue the alleged impropriety of the demanded attorneys' fees. After Oak Bluff's motion for temporary restraining order and petition for preliminary injunction were denied, Oak Bluff paid Meyer the entire amount he claimed, then sued him alleging civil conspiracy. To prove civil conspiracy Oak Bluff must prove that conspirators knowingly performed any act or took any action to further or carry out the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. Chmieleski v. City Products Corp., 660 S.W.2d 275, 290 (Mo.App.1983) (emphasis added). Without a showing that Oak Bluff tendered an amount that fully satisfied the debt owed under the deed of trust and that Meyer then conspired to refuse the tender and not release the property, Oak Bluff has not shown a necessary element of civil conspiracy, that the actions taken in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy were unlawful. Meyer had a right under the deed of trust to demand full satisfaction including attorneys' fees before giving Oak Bluff a deed of release. The trial court's judgment in favor of Oak Bluff on Count II is reversed.