Court Opinion

ID: 9773808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:59:57.473589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:58.222845
License: Public Domain

SHRUM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in J. Parrish’s opinion. However, as to Lessee’s first point, I would emphasize that Lessee did waive this issue at oral argument lest we leave the impression that merely addressing affirmative defenses in a memorandum in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is sufficient to dispel them. This is especially true for the defense of equitable estoppel as it is largely factually based. As this court has observed:
“ ‘No definition of estoppel, however, can be completely satisfactory. An equitable estoppel rests largely on the facts and circumstances of the particular ease[;] thus any attempted definition usually amounts to no more than a declaration of an estoppel under those facts and circumstances.’ ”
Heitz v. Champagne, 839 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Mo.App.1992) (quoting Miskimen v. Kansas City Star Co., 684 S.W.2d 394, 400[7] (Mo. App.1984)). Memorandums in support or in opposition to summary judgment motions are not admissible evidence. It is “[o]nly materials that are admissible or usable at trial [that] can sustain or avoid a summary judgment.” American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lacy, 825 S.W.2d 306, 311[3] (Mo.App.1991).
The following occurred at oral argument in this case:
[By Lessee’s attorney]: “The affirmative defenses really didn’t get considered as such in the trial court. But all the evi*135dence was put in and this is de novo review so I submit to you ... the facts did come in on our counterclaim, they’re in the court’s file and a decision can be made by this court to handle these issues.”
[By J. Shrum] “Are you suggesting then that any evidence you may have had on the defense of equitable estoppel is in the record? In other words, if this court should determine — and I’m not suggesting any outcome — but if we should determine that equitable estoppel was a viable defense, you’re saying that was all there for the court to consider.”
[Lessee’s attorney] “We have no additional evidence that could be put in. So to send us back — we wouldn’t have anything new to add.”
By the foregoing colloquy, Lessee conclusively waived its claim of error in Point I. I would dispose of Point I on that basis alone. I concur in J. Parrish’s analysis and disposition of Lessee’s other points relied on.