# Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A.

> Supreme Court of Missouri · May 1, 2007 · 220 S.W.3d 758

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678132

## Case

- **Full name:** Dennis E. HESS, Appellant-Respondent, v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, USA, N.A., Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** May 1, 2007
- **Citations:** 220 S.W.3d 758; 2007 Mo. LEXIS 65; 2007 WL 1261058
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Teitelman
- **Judges:** Laura Denvir Stith
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678132

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a statutory amendment is not retrospective when, “[r]ather than imposing a new duty ..., the amendment ... ‘merely substitute^] a new or more appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an existing right’ ” (quoting Pierce v. State Dept. of Social Servs., 969 S.W.2d…
- noting that "a fraud claim requires both proof of reliance and intent to induce reliance; the [Missouri Merchandising Practices Act] claim expressly does not"-15 C.S.R. 60-9.110(4
- holding that a claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act “expressly does not” require proof of reliance, though it does require causation
- holding that a seller is not required to disclose information that the buyer could find through “ordinary diligence”

## Opinion text

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Contrary to the majority opinion, I would hold that the punitive damages pro *775 visions 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9678132. Public record. Not legal advice.