Opinion ID: 2546274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs Made a Submissible Case Against Mr. Franklin

Text: A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be denied if the plaintiff made a submissible case. Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752, 769 (Mo. banc 2010). A case is submissible if each and every fact essential to liability is predicated on legal and substantial evidence. Id. The Court takes the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the prevailing party all reasonable inferences from the verdict and disregarding the unfavorable evidence. Hodges v. City of St. Louis, 217 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Mo. banc 2007). This Court will reverse the jury's verdict for insufficient evidence only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury's conclusion. Klotz, 311 S.W.3d at 769. The Overbeys did not seek to hold Mr. Franklin liable for violating the MMPA under respondeat superior or by piercing the corporate veil but rather for his personal involvement in the fraud. To hold him liable under the MMPA, they needed to prove his employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce .... § 407.020. A corporate officer may be held liable if it is shown by evidence of probative force that he had actual or constructive knowledge of the actionable wrong and participated therein. Wolfersberger v. Miller, 327 Mo. 1150, 39 S.W.2d 758, 764-65 (1931). Direct evidence of fraud rarely exists, [b]ut fraud, like any other fact, may be established by circumstantial evidence. Bank of New Cambria v. Briggs, 361 Mo. 723, 236 S.W.2d 289, 291 (1951). This may include indirect evidence of knowledge of or involvement in the conduct, as well as evidence of similar transactions in the course of a continuous, systematic course of dealing. Blakeley v. Bradley, 281 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Mo.1955); see also Chesus v. Watts, 967 S.W.2d 97, 113 (Mo.App.1998). Mr. Franklin did not admit involvement in the fraud, but the Overbeys presented substantial circumstantial evidence supporting his involvement in the fraudulent conduct. First, they showed that National placed television commercials advertising the payment-for-life program, quoted earlier. They showed that he was the sole owner of National and of Chad Franklin Suzuki. They showed that Chad Franklin Suzuki made commercials offering a similar program and that Mr. Franklin personally appeared in at least one of these commercials. They played these commercials as well as commercials for Nationalfor the jury. The jurors could see the similarity of the programs, they could see Mr. Franklin's personal involvement in the Suzuki program and they could see his relationship with both programs offered by his two wholly owned dealerships. Moreover, the Overbeys presented evidence that Mr. Franklin was involved in National's sales process by showing that when they complained about the failure to honor the payment-for-life program, the salesperson called Mr. Franklin personally about how to proceed. While, as Mr. Franklin notes, he then and now denied any knowledge of the fraudulent promises made to the Overbeys, the jury was free to find this denial incredible in light of the use of his name in National's commercials advertising the payment-for-life program and in light of the other evidence noted above. Further, the jury's finding that Mr. Franklin had personal knowledge of the fraudulent promises made to the Overbeys was supported by the testimony of four other persons who claimed they similarly were defrauded by National, as well as evidence that the Missouri attorney general received at least 35 complaints of analogous conduct in regard to the payment-for-life membership plan and similar payment plans and is seeking a civil injunction. This was not isolated conduct of a single errant salesperson. The Overbeys made a submissible case against Mr. Franklin, and the trial court properly overruled his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.