Eisel v. Midwest BankCentre

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a bank’s charged document preparation fees for mortgage loan documents violated Missouri statutes prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The court rejected the bank’s personal-interest and voluntary-payment defenses and declined to review its untimely constitutional challenge to the statute’s mens rea requirement. The judgment awarding treble damages and other relief to the plaintiffs was affirmed.

Holdings

1. Charging borrowers a fee for preparing or completing mortgage loan documents, including promissory notes and deeds of trust, constituted engaging in the unauthorized business of law in violation of sections 484.010 and 484.020.
2. A lender's financial stake in the loan transaction does not defeat a claim that it engaged in the unauthorized business of law by charging a fee for document preparation.
3. The voluntary payment doctrine does not bar recovery of payments made for services prohibited by section 484.020 because the statutory prohibition is not subject to waiver, consent, or lack of objection by the recipient of the services.
4. Midwest waived its constitutional challenge that section 484.020 lacks a necessary mens rea by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity, and the court declined plain-error review.
5. Appellate jurisdiction was proper because all issues and claims involving Midwest and the Eisels had been disposed of in the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Midwest's charging a document-preparation fee for preparing or completing mortgage loan documents violated Missouri Revised Statutes sections 484.010 and 484.020.
2. Whether Midwest's financial interest in the loan transaction constituted a defense to the unauthorized-practice-of-law claim.
3. Whether the voluntary payment doctrine barred the Eisels from recovering fees they voluntarily paid.
4. Whether Midwest's constitutional challenge alleging that section 484.020 lacks a required mens rea could be reviewed when first raised in the motion for new trial.
5. Whether the Supreme Court of Missouri had jurisdiction over the appeal.

Disposition

affirmed