Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesstatuteappealtrialbench trialtreble damages
plaintiffdamagesstatuteappealtrialbench trialtreble damages

Related Cases

Ricotta v. State of Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d 961
View Case »
Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488, 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 12, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,025, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 733
View Case »
Hawk v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 116 Cal.Rptr. 713
View Case »
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359
View Case »
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 99 S.Ct. 2721, 61 L.Ed.2d 480, 20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1, 20 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,026, 26 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 83,385
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eisel v. Midwest BankCentre, 230 S.W.3d 335

Facts

Midwest BankCentre charged Patricia and Clark Eisel a document preparation fee in connection with mortgage loans. The Eisels, along with other plaintiffs, claimed that this fee violated Missouri law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court found in favor of the Eisels after a bench trial, awarding treble damages under the relevant statute. Midwest BankCentre appealed the decision, challenging the constitutionality of the statute and the application of the voluntary payment doctrine.

Midwest BankCentre charged Patricia and Clark Eisel a document preparation fee in connection with mortgage loans. The Eisels, along with other plaintiffs, claimed that this fee violated Missouri law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court found in favor of the Eisels after a bench trial, awarding treble damages under the relevant statute. Midwest BankCentre appealed the decision, challenging the constitutionality of the statute and the application of the voluntary payment doctrine.

Issue

Did Midwest BankCentre engage in the unauthorized practice of law by charging a document preparation fee, and does the voluntary payment doctrine apply to bar recovery of that fee?

Did Midwest BankCentre engage in the unauthorized practice of law by charging a document preparation fee, and does the voluntary payment doctrine apply to bar recovery of that fee?

Rule

Under Missouri law, engaging in the practice of law without a license is prohibited, and charging fees for such services can lead to treble damages. The voluntary payment doctrine does not apply to situations where the payment was made for services that are illegal under the law.

Under Missouri law, engaging in the practice of law without a license is prohibited, and charging fees for such services can lead to treble damages. The voluntary payment doctrine does not apply to situations where the payment was made for services that are illegal under the law.

Analysis

The court determined that Midwest BankCentre's charging of a document preparation fee constituted the unauthorized practice of law as defined by Missouri statutes. The court rejected Midwest's argument that the voluntary payment doctrine should apply, stating that the doctrine does not protect illegal transactions and that customers should not be penalized for paying fees that violate the law.

The court determined that Midwest BankCentre's charging of a document preparation fee constituted the unauthorized practice of law as defined by Missouri statutes. The court rejected Midwest's argument that the voluntary payment doctrine should apply, stating that the doctrine does not protect illegal transactions and that customers should not be penalized for paying fees that violate the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Eisels, concluding that Midwest BankCentre's actions were unlawful and that the voluntary payment defense was inapplicable.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Eisels, concluding that Midwest BankCentre's actions were unlawful and that the voluntary payment defense was inapplicable.

Who won?

The Eisels prevailed in the case because the court found that Midwest BankCentre's charging of the document preparation fee constituted the unauthorized practice of law, which warranted treble damages.

The Eisels prevailed in the case because the court found that Midwest BankCentre's charging of the document preparation fee constituted the unauthorized practice of law, which warranted treble damages.

You must be