Court Opinion

ID: 9769753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:01:40.84409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:07.736374
License: Public Domain

PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I write separately to emphasize the need to timely make election of inconsistent remedies.
In this case, at the close of all the evidence, procedures were established permitting the parties to submit written suggestions for the trial court’s consideration in deciding the case. Defendants’ attorney, ap*203parently recognizing the plaintiffs’ obligation to elect among inconsistent remedies they pleaded, suggested that plaintiffs file their suggestions first. Defendants’ attorney told the trial court, “I need to see which theory he’s going [sic] and which theory he’s abandoning and then I’ll do something later.”
The trial court established a time for plaintiffs to file suggestions and allowed defendants “a week thereafter” to respond. However, the record on appeal does not reveal an election of remedies whs made.
When inconsistent remedies are pleaded, parties and the courts in which such actions are filed should take reasonable steps to assure the applicable party elects the remedy the party wishes to pursue. Otherwise, as is evidenced in Trien v. Croasdale Const. Co., 874 S.W.2d 478 (Mo.App.1994), and Alexander v. Link’s Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614 (Mo.App.1991), cited in the principal opinion, confusion abounds. As suggested in Buss v. Horine, 819 S.W.2d 762, 767 (Mo.App.1991), failure to grant a motion to require an election can be error. Confusion can be avoided by requiring that a timely election of remedies be made. Id. That was not done in this case.