Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Missouri

This case is in Jefferson County, MO.

My mother, my husband, and myself purchased a house together in 2006. We were all on the deed and the mortgage. In April 2007, my mother demanded that my husband and I move out. Although we knew she had no right to do so, we did vacate rather than live with the "hell" she was causing with us. From November 2006 to (and including) April 2007, my husband and I paid every mortgage and utility bill that was incurred, including the escrow money paid to the mortgage company as part of our mortgage payment.

Needless to say, a lot of fighting incurred between the parties. In October of 2007, I requested the escrow account to be closed and refunded, which was honored by our mortgage company. The check arrived and had only my name and my husband's name as the payee. My mother's name was not on the check and she had no knowledge of the request to close the account. We cashed the check.

My mother then sued me and my husband, and named the mortgage company as a separate defendent. I hired an attorney to advise. As I did not pay the entire escrow refund amount, I settled with my mother and paid her back. A settlement was drawn including a clause that she could not claim further damages against us.

My mother did not drop her suit against the mortgage company. In turn, the mortgage company named us a third party defendants and brought us back in to the proceedings. Her basis of the suit is that her name was not on the check and not notified that a refund was issued.

We were scheduled for deposition today, requested by the mortgage company's attorney. My mother did not show up. Because hers was the first one scheduled, they cancelled the entire deposition. I was not present, however my attorney was. It is unknown at this time if her attorney was present.

I actually have a couple of questions here.

First, shouldn't my attorney have protected me from being a third party defendant in the first place? It seems almost like malpractice, This should have been covered in the original settlement with my mother.

Second, because she did not show for her deposition, shouldn't this automatically be dismissed?

I don't have much confidence in my attorney, even though he came highly recommended. I have so much money paid to him at this point, I'm not sure if it would be beneficial to switch attorneys this late in the game.

I sincerely appreciate any information or advice given, as I am truly at a loss.


Asked on 11/11/09, 12:45 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Robert Curran Curran Law Firm

Read, and talk to your lawyer about, Missouri statute 537.060, which may help. He or she may have already considered all of this and ruled it out, but here's what it says:

Contribution between tort-feasors--release of one or more, effect.

537.060. Defendants in a judgment founded on an action for the redress of a private wrong shall be subject to contribution, and all other consequences of such judgment, in the same manner and to the same extent as defendants in a judgment in an action founded on contract. When an agreement by release, covenant not to sue or not to enforce a judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or wrongful death, such agreement shall not discharge any of the other tort-feasors for the damage unless the terms of the agreement so provide; however such agreement shall reduce the claim by the stipulated amount of the agreement, or in the amount of consideration paid, whichever is greater. The agreement shall discharge the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution or noncontractual indemnity to any other tort-feasor. The term "noncontractual indemnity" as used in this section refers to indemnity between joint tort-feasors culpably negligent, having no legal relationship to each other and does not include indemnity which comes about by reason of contract, or by reason of vicarious liability.

Depending on what the claims in the lawsuit are, this may end them, to the extent that they are based in tort (not contract).

Please be aware that the statements and opinions provided above are just a broad informational service to the general public. Since this reply is based upon an incomplete description of facts, this email can not used as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified and fully-informed attorney. Moreover, these communications are intended for use by the public. As such, this email does not constitute a confidential communication nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with Curran Law Firm or any of its members.

Good luck.

Rob Curran

Curran Law Firm

4608-B South Campbell Avenue

Springfield, MO 65810

www.CurranLawFirm.com

Read more
Answered on 11/16/09, 7:10 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in Missouri