Court Opinion

ID: 9678132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:12:17.216865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.072659
License: Public Domain

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Contrary to the majority opinion, I would hold that the punitive damages pro*775visions in the amended MPA can be applied retroactively because those provisions did not establish new standards of conduct or create new liabilities. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.
I agree with the majority that laws providing for penalties where none existed before are to be given prospective application. However, this case does not involve the imposition of any new penalties for violating a new standard of conduct. Instead, this case involves a new procedural means of obtaining a “more appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an existing right.” Pierce v. State Dept, of Social Services, 969 S.W.2d 814, 823 (Mo.App.1998). Consequently, the punitive damages provision in the 2000 amendments does not violate the constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws.
When the conduct at issue in this case occurred, the MPA already prohibited Chase from concealing material facts in a real estate transaction and provided for enforcement action by the Attorney General. The MPA also already provided that when a court found an MPA violation and awarded restitution, “there shall be added” penalties of ten percent “or such other amount as may be agreed by the parties or awarded by the court.” Section 407.140.3. This statutory language indicates that Chase, even before the 2000 amendments, was already subject to penalties for its conduct in an amount limited only by the constraints of due process. Such liability is materially indistinguishable from punitive damages liability. Thus, the provision for punitive damage in the 2000 amendments did not alter the pre-existing potential for liability in a meaningful way and, instead, simply expanded the procedural options for enforcing pre-existing standards of conduct among real estate vendors. There is no bar to the retroactive application of a procedural or remedial statute that expands the procedural options for enforcing pre-existing standards of conduct. Mendelsohn v. State Bd. Of Registration for the Healing Arts, 3 S.W.3d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 1999). Accordingly, I would allow the retroactive application of the punitive damages provision in the MPA.