Hughes v. SMG II, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hughes v. SMG II, LLC

293 S.W.3d 452, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 926, 2008 WL 2651514

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

DocketED 89480

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.W.3d 452 (Hughes v. SMG II, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hughes v. SMG II, LLC, 293 S.W.3d 452, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 926, 2008 WL 2651514 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals from the judgment determining SMG II, LLC’s (“Summit”) gross profit on the American Heart Association Programs (“AHA Programs”) was $2,456,025, Hughes was entitled to fifty percent of those gross profits in the amount of $1,228,013, and an award of prejudgment interest was inappropriate. Hughes argues the trial court erred (1) in failing to apply the amount of gross profit stipulated in Paragraph 2 of the stipulation to the contractual commission rate percentage, (2) in failing to find in favor of Hughes for fifty percent of the increase to the stipulated amount of gross profit from reversal of intra-company mark-ups, inclusion of certificate rebates and freight re *453 bates pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), (3) in failing to order an accounting of the freight rebates received by Summit on the AHA account, and (4) in failing to award Hughes prejudgment interest. In its cross-appeal, Summit argues the trial court erred in finding the language of the employment agreement to be clear and unambiguous.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals from the judgment determining SMG II, LLC’s (“Summit”) gross profit on the American Heart Association Programs (“AHA Programs”) was $2,456,025, Hughes was entitled to fifty percent of those gross profits in the amount of $1,228,013, and an award of prejudgment interest was inappropriate. Hughes argues the trial court erred (1) in failing to apply the amount of gross profit stipulated in Paragraph 2 of the stipulation to the contractual commission rate percentage, (2) in failing to find in favor of Hughes for fifty percent of the increase to the stipulated amount of gross profit from reversal of intra-company mark-ups, inclusion of certificate rebates and freight re *453 bates pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), (3) in failing to order an accounting of the freight rebates received by Summit on the AHA account, and (4) in failing to award Hughes prejudgment interest. In its cross-appeal, Summit argues the trial court erred in finding the language of the employment agreement to be clear and unambiguous.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W.3d 452, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 926, 2008 WL 2651514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-smg-ii-llc-moctapp-2008.