Are legal services within the M.M.P.A.? McFarland v. Trame, No. ED99669, 2013 WL 6169474 (Mo. Ct. App., E.D. 2013), is a brief that argues so:
Appellant’s Count VI in her First Amended Petition, alleging violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, was dismissed on or about November 23, 2010. See L.F. 4. This ruling was proper and should not be disturbed because Missouri courts have not applied the MMPA to fiduciary causes of action such as the present case (i.e., cases against attorneys), and instead have only applied the MMPA to its intended types of cases, such as consumer transactions such as claims brought by automobile purchasers against automobile dealerships, and customers against roof repair and air conditioning companies. See, e.g., Schuchmann v. Air. Serv. Heating & Air. Cond., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006); Morehouse v. Behlmann Pontiac-GMC Truck Serv., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000); Viene v. Concours Auto Sales, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. App. 1990); State ex rel. Webster v. Milbourn, 759 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988).
That’s interesting. What about real estate brokers? Categorization of that relationship has changed in various jurisdictions over time. What was the characterization in, let’s say, 1984, in a case discussing the relationship of H.S.C., as the real estate broker, to American, its principal and the seller?
More after the break …