Irwin v. Bertelsmeyer

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · 1987 · Corporations

730 S.W.2d 302 (1987)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationssplitting cause of actionjoint obligorsoral employment contractstatute of limitationsstatute of fraudsalter egosuccessor corporation

Facts

In an earlier case, appellant obtained a jury verdict on an oral employment contract against Imperial Auto Auction, Inc., Robert Bertelsmeyer, and Earl Morton. In this action, appellant alleged that Melba Jean Bertelsmeyer, who was not a party to the earlier litigation, was also personally liable on that same contract, and that her prior testimony included an admission of personal liability. Appellant also alleged that Imperial Auto Auction, Inc. was in forfeiture and that Suburban Auto Auction, Inc. was a successor corporation and the alter ego of Robert and Melba Jean Bertelsmeyer. He claimed the successor corporation was being used to avoid payment of the judgment debt.

Issue

Whether appellant impermissibly split his cause of action by suing Melba Jean Bertelsmeyer separately on the oral contract after prevailing in an earlier action against other defendants, and whether appellant stated a viable alter ego claim against the alleged successor corporation sufficient to survive dismissal. The court also addressed whether Count I was barred by limitations or the Statute of Frauds on the face of the petition.

Rule

The rule against splitting a cause of action is aimed at preventing a plaintiff from dividing a single claim against the same defendant into multiple suits, and it applies only where the several causes of action are between the same parties. Joint obligors on a contract may be sued separately because contracts are construed as joint and several. A petition also states an alter ego claim where it alleges that individuals dominate a corporation and use it for an unlawful, unfair, or inequitable purpose to avoid legal obligations, in which case equity may pierce the corporate veil.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In St. Louis, Devon Pike won a judgment for breach of a consulting contract against North River Storage, Inc. and one of its co-promisors, Alan Cross. Devon later filed a new suit on the same contract against Brenda Cross, who had signed the agreement but was not named in the first action.

Brenda moves to dismiss, arguing Devon impermissibly split a single cause of action because both suits arise from the same contract and require the same evidence. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The motion should be denied. The majority explained that the anti-splitting rule is aimed at preventing multiple suits against the same defendant and applies only where the several causes of action are between the same parties. It also stated that joint obligors on a contract may be sued separately because contractual obligations are construed as joint and several.