Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)

Citation: Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)
Parent Document: Centerline Investment Co. v. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 499 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2002-07-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5274892/centerline-investment-co-v-tri-... ↗

Full Text

1,077 chars

Centerline’s petition essentially describes what the lease entitles them to. It does not specifically say that it is seeking damages for real estate commissions.3 *506Without deciding whether this sufficiently pleads that Centerline was demanding real estate commissions, we believe the record makes clear that Tri-Cor was not surprised by Centerline’s demand for real estate commissions and evidence supporting such an award of damages was admitted without objection. While Rule 55.19 requires that special damages “shall be specifically stated,” this requirement has been leniently applied in circumstances where no surprise occurs and no objection is made to the evidence at trial. See Roman v. Morrissey, 517 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Mo.1974) (“when evidence is received without objection, the pleadings may be considered to have been amended to conform to the proof even though an amendment is not in fact made.”). We therefore hold that the trial court erred in refusing to consider Centerline’s demand for real estate commissions on the ground that they were improperly pleaded.

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text