Morelock v. Highland Springs Cmty. Ass'n, Inc.

679 S.W.3d 115

Wayne D. MORELOCK, Kathy J. Morelock, and Morelock Family Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.HIGHLAND SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Samuel M. Coryell, and Jennifer L. Coryell, Defendants-Respondents.

No. SD 37431

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, In Division.

Filed: November 13, 2023

Rehearing Denied November 29, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, Honorable Charles D. Curless, Senior Judge

Attorneys for Appellants: Bryan O. Wade and Ginger K. Gooch of Springfield, MO.

Attorney for Respondent HSCA: Cara R. Rose of Springfield, MO.

Attorneys for Respondents Coryell: Charles B. Cowherd and Derek A. Ankrom of Springfield, MO.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

This case arose after a "highly reflective" metal roof (Roof) was installed on the newly constructed home of Samuel and Jennifer Coryell (the Coryells). The Roof was approved by Highland Springs Community Association, Inc. (HSCA). The Coryells built their home on property purchased from the Morelock Family Limited Partnership (MFLP). The Coryells’ property shares a boundary line with property owned by Wayne and Kathy Morelock (the Morelocks). Hereinafter, we will refer to the Morelocks and MFLP collectively as Plaintiffs when appropriate.

The Morelocks sued the Coryells and HSCA concerning the Roof. The case was tried to a jury. The jury returned Verdict B in favor of the Morelocks and against HSCA, but no damages were awarded to the Morelocks. The jury returned Verdict C, in favor of the Morelocks against HSCA, and awarded the Morelocks $500,000 in damages due to the diminution in value of their property after installation of the Roof. In Verdicts A and D, the jury found in favor of the Coryells on the claims asserted against them by the Morelocks. There were no objections raised by the parties to any of the verdicts. The trial court accepted the verdicts, discharged the jury and entered judgment (Judgment) in due course.

Thereafter, the trial court filed a "Post-Trial Order and Amended Judgment" (Amended Judgment). Therein, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for HSCA. This ruling was purportedly based on the verdicts being inconsistent, despite that not being a ground specified in HSCA’s motion for JNOV. The Amended Judgment also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to: (1) award attorney’s fees and costs with respect to a boundary-line change to which the Coryells agreed; and (2) order the Coryells to bear their own costs at trial.

On appeal, Plaintiffs present four points. Points 1 and 2 contend the trial court erred by entering JNOV against the Morelocks because: (1) assuming there was any inconsistency in the verdicts, HSCA waived that objection by not asserting that objection before the jury was discharged; and (2) the verdicts were consistent because the liability of HSCA was not premised upon the conduct of the Coryells. Point 3 concerns the boundary-line change between the Morelock and Coryell properties. In that point, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to award attorney’s fees and costs, which were authorized by the Coryells’ agreement with MFLP to purchase the property. Point 4 contends that, pursuant to § 514.090, the trial court erred in denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to order the Coryells to bear their own costs at trial.¹

Because Points 1-3 have merit, we vacate the entry of JNOV in favor of HSCA and the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment to award attorney’s fees and costs with respect to the boundary-line change. We remand with directions for the trial court to: (1) enter a second amended judgment, in accordance with Verdict C, finding in favor of the Morelocks and awarding them $500,000 in property damages from HSCA; (2) order the Coryells to execute all documents necessary to facilitate the change in the boundary line; and (3) conduct further proceedings for the purpose of awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to MFLP with respect to the boundary-line change. In all other respects, the Amended Judgment is affirmed.

Procedural Background

The Morelocks filed suit against the Coryells and HSCA in May 2018. The Coryells filed a counterclaim against the Morelocks and MFLP concerning, inter alia, a change to the boundary line between the Morelock and Coryell properties.² In a second amended petition, MFLP was added as a plaintiff via a new count, Count 7 (Count 7), which asked the trial court to require the Coryells to execute the final replat that established the boundary line between the Morelock and Coryell properties. Count 7 alleged the Coryells already had agreed to this procedure in the Purchase and Sales Agreement (PSA), which they signed to purchase their property from MFLP.³ One week before trial, the Coryells dismissed without prejudice the remaining count of their counterclaim concerning the boundary. That left only Plaintiffs’ Count 7 boundary-line claim to be decided at trial.

The jury trial was held in October 2021. As an initial matter, the parties agreed that: (1) all lot and home owners in the parties’ subdivision are bound by the "Master Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" and the "Design Guidelines" of HSCA (collectively, the Design Guidelines); and (2) HSCA is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Design Guidelines. The Morelocks’ theory of the case was that material installed on the Roof was not approved before installation, as required by the Design Guidelines. The Coryells’ position was that they had received approval for the Roof material from the HSCA. The Coryells introduced evidence that: (1) HSCA had final, binding authority to decide issues of interpretation and to resolve disputes between owners pursuant to the Design Guidelines; and (2) HSCA had decided the issue of compliance of the Roof in the Coryells’ favor. During the eight-day trial, the jury heard extensive evidence about: (1) both action and inaction by HSCA regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the Design Guidelines relating to the Roof material; and (2) damages resulting from the diminution in value of the Morelocks’ property after the Roof was installed.

Insofar as relevant here, the Morelocks submitted four verdict forms to the jury: nuisance against the Coryells (Verdict A); negligence against HSCA (Verdict B); breach of contract against HSCA (Verdict C); and breach of contract against the Coryells (Verdict D). The trial court also advised the jury, via separate instruction, that the judge would decide the boundaryline issue involving Plaintiffs and the Coryells.

[1, 2] The jury returned verdicts for the Coryells and against the Morelocks in Verdicts A (nuisance) and D (breach of contract). The jury found for the Morelocks and against HSCA in Verdict B (negligence) and awarded $0 in damages. The jury found for the Morelocks and against HSCA in Verdict C (breach of contract) and awarded the Morelocks $500,000 in property damages. No objections were made to any of the verdicts.⁴ The trial court accepted the verdicts and discharged the jury. After the jury was discharged, the Coryells stipulated to change the boundary line as requested by Plaintiffs in Count 7. A week later, Plaintiffs filed their motion for attorney’s fees and costs relating to the boundary-line change.

In November 2021, the trial court entered the Judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. On the Morelocks’ breach-of-contract claim against HSCA, the court entered judgment in favor of the Morelocks and against HSCA and awarded the Morelocks $500,000 property damages. With respect to the Count 7 boundary-line change, the court stated:

a) Following the close of evidence, the Coryells stipulated that they would sign an amended plat prepared by the Morelocks to move the boundary line between the lot owned by the Coryells and the lot owned by the Morelocks. The Coryells are ordered to execute all documents necessary to facilitate said boundary exchange.

b) The claim of Plaintiffs for attorney’s fees is denied.

… The costs the Coryells incurred herein are assessed to Plaintiffs. The costs that Plaintiffs incurred herein are assessed to HSCA.

In December 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment. This motion requested, inter alia, that the trial court: (1) award attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the boundary-line change pursuant to Count 7; and (2) given the disposition of Count 7, order the Coryells to bear their own costs in the proceeding "as they were not a prevailing party in total[.]"

Around this same time, HSCA filed its motion for JNOV, a new trial, or a remittitur. With respect to the JNOV relief, HSCA asserted that the Morelocks failed to make a submissible case for breach of contract. With respect to the requested new trial, HSCA asserted only that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. HSCA discussed what it viewed as inconsistencies in the verdicts returned by the jury, but HSCA did not seek JNOV relief on this ground. A hearing on posttrial motions was scheduled for March 2022, but that hearing never occurred.

In February 2022, the trial court filed an Amended Judgment entering JNOV for HSCA on the basis that Verdict C was inconsistent with Verdict D in favor of the Coryells. This was not a ground raised by HSCA in its JNOV motion. The trial court’s rationale was that JNOV was appropriate "in a case such as this, where a verdict against a defendant is necessarily premised on the liability of a co-defendant who is found non-liable[.]" The disposition of Count 7 (quoted above from the original Judgment) was omitted entirely from the Amended Judgment.⁵ The court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judg- ment, thereby denying the request for attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the boundary-line change, and the request that the Coryells bear their own costs. This appeal followed. Additional facts...