Court Opinion

ID: 9638492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:44:57.528223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.730340
License: Public Domain

DUANE BENTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Missouri has a clear rule: equity retains jurisdiction once acquired, until the facts that sustain equity jurisdiction “fail of establishment.” State ex rel. Willman v. Sloan, 574 S.W.2d 421, 422-23 (Mo. banc 1978) (unanimous court); Jaycox v. Brune, 434 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Mo.1968); Jeffrey A. Burns, Methods of Practice, 2 Mo. Practice § 10.1, pp. 343-45 (2002); Robert H. Dierker & Richard J. Mehan, Contracts, Equity, and Statutory Action Handbook, 35 Mo. Practice § 23.12, pp. 464-65 (2004).
The facts “fail of establishment” when: 1) legal relief alone is sought, or 2) plaintiffs equitable claims are dismissed or terminated adversely. Willman, 574 S.W.2d at 423. The judge retains jurisdiction until he or she “decides all of the issues adequately and fairly between the parties.” Custom Muffler and Shocks, Inc. v. Gordon Partnership, 3 S.W.3d 811, 817 (Mo. App.1999). “It is a well-established rule that where a court of equity once acquires jurisdiction of a cause it will retain it to do full and complete justice.” Seested v. Dickey, 318 Mo. 192, 300 S.W. 1088, 1101-02 (1927). This rule has been consistently followed for over 100 years. See cases cited in the appendix to this opinion.
The majority labels the established law “inconsistent and confusing.” The cases cited by the majority are not inconsistent.
*475There is (1) the general rule, and (2) the “fail of establishment” exception. The doctrine is clear, but the results differ, depending on the facts.
All the cases cited by both opinions follow the general proposition that once equity attaches, the court retains jurisdiction. Krummenacher, Burnett, and Jaycox all apply the “fail of establishment” exception, and therefore require a jury trial. The Rockhill and the Willman decisions, on the other hand, do not reach the “fail of establishment” exception to the general rule.
The majority opinion suggests that Rockhill and Willman are inconsistent with the others. To the contrary, the cases are wholly consistent based on the type of claim (the final form of relief— money — does not matter.) In both Rock-hill and Willman the court awarded money damages for the equitable claim, and a legal claim was never raised. “Although damages are usually a legal remedy, a court of equity may decree them where they are the relief necessary in order to do equity.” Willman, 574 S.W.2d at 422; see Rockhill Tennis Club of Kansas City v. Volker, 331 Mo. 947, 56 S.W.2d 9, 20 (1932).
In Krummenacher, Burnett, and Jay-cox, both legal and equitable claims were raised. These cases apply the “fail of establishment” exception. The equitable claims were dismissed or terminated adversely — leaving only legal claims — and therefore, a jury trial was required.
In this case, the facts did not fail of establishment. Legal relief was not the sole remedy sought. Further, Plaintiffs claim for injunction was not dismissed or terminated adversely. The trial judge expressly reserved the claim for a permanent injunction for the bench trial, and legal relief wholly depended on the claim for a permanent injunction. The trial judge thus retained jurisdiction over all claims.
The rule has been followed for over a century because it is fair and efficient. It spurs early resolution of equitable claims, because (1) if the judge grants temporary relief, full relief can follow promptly, or (2) if the judge denies all equitable relief, legal claims still go to the jury. The Missouri rule brings prompter disposition of most cases, avoiding a waste of judicial time and resources, and unnecessary litigation expenses. Straatman, 780 S.W.2d at 710-11. There is no reason to abandon settled law, as reflected in the long line of cases in the appendix. I dissent.
APPENDIX
Deutsch v. Wolff, 994 S.W.2d 561, 567 (Mo. banc 1999);
State ex rel. Drey v. Hoester, 608 S.W.2d 401, 404 (Mo. banc 1980);
Craig v. Jo B. Gardner, Inc., 586 S.W.2d 316, 325 (Mo.1979);
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. Zykan, 495 S.W.2d 643, 658 (Mo.1973);
Willman v. Beheler, 499 S.W.2d 770, 778 (Mo.1973);
Perry v. Perry, 484 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Mo.1972);
Wallach v. Joseph, 420 S.W.2d 289, 296 (Mo.1967);
Sebree v. Rosen, 374 S.W.2d 132, 138 (Mo.1964);
Burnett v. Johnson, 349 S.W.2d 19, 22-23 (Mo.1961);
Anison v. Rice, 282 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Mo.1955);
Missouri Cafeteria, Inc. v. McVey, 362 Mo. 583, 242 S.W.2d 549, 553 (1951);
Krummenacher v. W. Auto Supply Co., 358 Mo. 757, 217 S.W.2d 473, 475 (1949);
*476Miller v. Haberman, 359 Mo. 1012, 224 S.W.2d 1002,1006 (1949);
De Tienne v. Peters, 354 Mo. 166, 188 S.W.2d 954, 956 (1945);
Hallauer v. Lackey, 353 Mo. 1244, 188 S.W.2d 30, 34 (1945);
McKay v. Snider, 354 Mo. 674, 190 S.W.2d 886, 893 (1945);
Townsend v. Maplewood Investment & Loan Co., 351 Mo. 738, 173 S.W.2d 911, 913-14 (1943);
Waugh v. Williams, 342 Mo. 903, 119 S.W.2d 223, 227 (1938);
Rains v. Moulder, 338 Mo. 275, 90 S.W.2d 81, 85 (1936);
Rockhill Tennis Club v. Volker, 331 Mo. 947, 56 S.W.2d 9, 20 (1932);
Phelps v. Scott, 325 Mo. 711, 30 S.W.2d 71, 75 (1930);
Hurst Automatic Switch & Signal Co. v. Trust Co. of St. Louis County, 291 Mo. 54, 236 S.W. 58, 62 (1921);
Marston v. Catterlin, 290 Mo. 185, 234 S.W. 816, 817 (1921);
Growney v. O’Donnell, 272 Mo. 167, 198 S.W. 863, 865-66 (1917);
Waddle v. Frazier, 245 Mo. 391, 151 S.W. 87, 90 (1912);
Barnard v. Keathley, 230 Mo. 209, 130 S.W. 306, 310 (1910);
School District Number One v. Holt, 226 Mo. 406,126 S.W. 462, 464 (1910);
Real Estate Sav. Inst. v. Collonious, 63 Mo. 290, 295 (1876);
Gray v. White, 26 S.W.3d 806, 821 (Mo. App.1999);
Hunt v. Smith, 992 S.W.2d 303, 307 (Mo.App.1999);
State ex rel. Wayside Waifs v. Williamson, 3 S.W.3d 390, 394 (Mo.App.1999);
Webcon Group, Inc. v. S.M. Props., L.P., 1 S.W.3d 538, 542 (Mo.App.1999);
Brandecker v. Morris (In re Estate of Dean), 967 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Mo.App.1998);
Meyer v. Lofgren, 949 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Mo.App.1997);
Licare v. Hill, 879 S.W.2d 777, 779 (Mo.App.1994);
Collins v. Jenkins, 821 S.W.2d 892, 894 (Mo.App.1992);
Stafford v. McCarthy, 825 S.W.2d 650, 658 (Mo.App.1992);
Kopp v. Franks, 792 S.W.2d 413, 425-26 (Mo.App.1990);
Straatman v. Straatman, 780 S.W.2d 709, 710-11 (Mo.App.1989);
Washington University Medical Center Redevelopment Corp. v. Wolfgram, 730 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Mo.App.1987);
Siesta Manor, Inc. v. Cmty. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n., 716 S.W.2d 835, 838-39 (Mo.App.1986);
Pipes v. Sevier, 694 S.W.2d 918, 923 (Mo.App.1985);
Dunn v. Bemor Petroleum, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo.App.1984);
Thornbrugh v. Poulin, 679 S.W.2d 416, 417-18 (Mo.App.1984);
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 659 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo.App.1983);
Suburbia Pools, Inc. v. Fischer, 661 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Mo.App.1983);
Linville v. Wilson, 628 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Mo.App.1982);
Spencer’s River Roads Bowling Lanes, Inc. v. Unico Management Co., 615 S.W.2d 121,125 (Mo.App.1981);
Jenni v. Gamel, 602 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Mo.App.1980);
Shultz v. Kline, 552 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App.1977);
*477Owens v. Savage, 518 S.W.2d 192, 202 (Mo.App.1974);
Dunning v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 483 S.W.2d 423, 428 (Mo.App.1972);
Kirtz v. Grossman, 463 S.W.2d 541, 545 (Mo.App.1971);
Lee v. New Age Federal Sav. & Loan Association, 425 S.W.2d 271, 273-74 (Mo. App.1968);
McDown v. Wilson, 426 S.W.2d 112, 118 (Mo.App.1968);
Pittman v. Faron, 315 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Mo.App.1958);
Wenzelburger v. Wenzelburger, 296 S.W.2d 163,165 (Mo.App.1956);
Sapp v. Garrett, 284 S.W.2d 49, 52 (Mo. App.1955);
Goldman v. Ashbrook, 262 S.W.2d 165, 168 (Mo.App.1953);
Methodist Benevolent Ass’n v. Bank of Sweet Springs, 227 Mo.App. 566, 54 S.W.2d 474, 479 (1932);
Bentrup v. Johnson, 223 Mo.App. 299, 14 S.W.2d 537, 541(1929);
Supreme Lodge, K.P. v. Dalzell, 205 Mo. App. 207, 223 S.W. 786, 789 (1920).
Foster v. Williams, 144 Mo.App. 219, 128 S.W. 797, 799 (1910).