Farmers Exchange Bank v. Metro Contracting Services, Inc.
107 S.W.3d 381, 2003 WL 1571709, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 455 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining the nature of a spouse's interest in movable personal property acquired during marriage for purposes of attachment, Missouri courts apply the law of the state where the spouses were domiciled at the time of acquisition, characterizing it as a substantive property issue under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 258.
Facts:
- On April 14, 2000, Harlan R. Russell, as president of Metro Contracting Services, Inc. (Metro), executed two promissory notes in favor of Farmers Exchange Bank (respondent).
- As security for the Metro loans, Harlan R. Russell executed a personal guaranty, forging the signature of his then-wife, Rose Mary Russell (Ms. Russell).
- Metro subsequently failed to make required payments on the notes in September and October 2000, prompting Farmers Exchange Bank to accelerate payment.
- On October 4, 2000, Eaton Investments, L.L.C. executed a promissory note for $293,000, payable to Harlan R. Russell and Rose M. Russell.
- At the time the Eaton note was executed, the Russells resided at 8909 Mohawk Road, Leawood, Kansas, as indicated by the note itself, their tax returns, financial statements, and admissions in court filings.
Procedural Posture:
- Farmers Exchange Bank (respondent) filed a two-count petition in the Circuit Court of Platte County against Metro Contracting Services, Inc. (Metro) and Harlan R. Russell and Rose M. Russell for 'breach of promissory notes' (Count I against Metro) and 'breach of guaranty' (Count II against the Russells).
- The suit against Rose M. Russell was later dismissed by Farmers Exchange Bank due to her forged signature on the guaranty.
- Farmers Exchange Bank filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition, which included an 'application for writ of attachment' (Count V) seeking prejudgment attachment of Harlan R. Russell's interest in the Eaton note.
- On March 1, 2001, the trial court in Platte County sustained Farmers Exchange Bank's motion to amend its petition and, after a hearing on the application, ordered the issuance of a prejudgment writ of attachment against Harlan R. Russell's interest in the Eaton note, finding he held it as a tenant in common.
- Harlan R. Russell filed a notice of appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, appealing the issuance of the prejudgment attachment, but this appeal was dismissed by that court on April 27, 2001, on Farmers Exchange Bank's motion.
- Harlan R. Russell filed a third-party petition against Albert G. Rampone, Barbara Rampone, Aero Star Concrete, Inc., and Metro.
- Farmers Exchange Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on its amended petition.
- Harlan R. Russell filed a motion to 'dissolve or quash prejudgment writ of attachment'.
- On August 10, 2001, the trial court granted 'partial summary judgment' to Farmers Exchange Bank against Metro and Harlan R. Russell on Counts I and II of the amended petition.
- Farmers Exchange Bank later dismissed Counts III and IV of its amended petition without prejudice.
- On October 24, 2001, the trial court entered a 'judgment' against Harlan R. Russell and Metro for the principal amount plus interest and attorney's fees, and also dismissed Harlan R. Russell's third-party petition without prejudice.
- Harlan R. Russell filed a motion to 'Set Aside October 18, 2001 Judgment Pursuant to Rule 74.06' (referring to the October 24 judgment).
- Farmers Exchange Bank filed a motion for an order disbursing the Eaton note proceeds that had been attached.
- On November 26, 2001, the trial court re-entered what amounted to the same judgment as October 24, 2001, and entered an order sustaining Farmers Exchange Bank's motion to disburse the attached note proceeds, implicitly overruling Harlan R. Russell's motion to dissolve the attachment.
- Harlan R. Russell filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, on December 4, 2001.
- Harlan R. Russell's motion for a new trial was overruled on January 10, 2002.
- On February 7, 2002, the trial court entered a 'judgment entry' sustaining Harlan R. Russell's motion for early appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Missouri law or Kansas law govern the classification of an interest in a promissory note acquired by a married couple domiciled in Kansas, thereby determining whether the note is held as tenants by the entirety or as tenants in common and thus subject to attachment by a judgment creditor in Missouri?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwin H. Smith
Yes, Kansas law governs the classification of Harlan R. Russell's interest in the Eaton note, and under Kansas law, his interest was properly found to be a tenancy in common, making it subject to attachment under Missouri law. The court first characterized the conflict of laws issue as a substantive matter of property law, not a procedural issue or a contractual one. This is because the question concerned the legal relationship between a person and a thing (the nature of the property interest), rather than merely the method of enforcing rights or obligations. Applying Missouri's conflict of laws doctrine, the court relied on § 258 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which dictates that a spouse's interest in movable property acquired during marriage is determined by the local law of the state where the spouses were domiciled at the time of acquisition. The court found that the Russells were domiciled in Kansas when the Eaton note was executed, based on evidence including their address on the note, tax returns, financial statements, and their own admissions. Under Kansas law (§ 58-501 Kan. Stat. Ann.), conveyances to two or more persons, including a husband and wife, create a tenancy in common unless a joint tenancy is clearly expressed, which was not the case for the Eaton note. Thus, Harlan R. Russell held his interest as a tenant in common. Under Missouri law, a judgment creditor can attach a debtor's interest in personal property held as a tenant in common. The court also rejected the appellant's claims that the prejudgment writ of attachment was facially deficient, confirming it complied with Rule 85.05, and that the supporting affidavit properly included the appellant's statements as admissible party-opponent admissions rather than impermissible hearsay.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the application of conflict of laws principles in Missouri, particularly in distinguishing substantive property law from procedural or contractual issues when classifying marital interests in movable assets. It reinforces Missouri's adherence to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, specifically §§ 258 and 6, which prioritize the domicile of spouses at the time of property acquisition to determine the governing law. The ruling provides clarity on how joint property interests, such as promissory notes, are assessed across state lines for purposes of creditor attachment, establishing a predictable framework that impacts debtors and creditors alike in interstate transactions.
