ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Branson’s Nantucket against two attorneys and their law firms, rejecting claims of tortious interference and civil conspiracy.
The ruling affirms the decision of the Barry County Circuit Court to dismiss the case with prejudice, effectively ending the resort company’s legal challenge, according to the Jan. 27 court document.
Branson’s Nantucket, a luxury resort near Branson overlooking Table Rock Lake, filed suit in December 2022, alleging that attorneys Joshua Neally and Jennifer Hardy, along with their law firms, Timeshare Law Office, and Neally Law, unlawfully interfered with its business.
According to the complaint, the defendants advised vacation owners to stop making payments on their timeshare contracts, causing financial harm to the resort company.
After the case was transferred to Barry County, the court initially allowed Branson’s Nantucket to amend its petition to provide more details.
However, even after the amendment, the defendants argued that the claims remained legally insufficient.
In November 2023, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, leading to Branson’s Nantucket’s appeal.
On appeal, Branson’s Nantucket argued that it had sufficiently pleaded its claims and that the trial court erred in dismissing the case.
"Branson’s Nantucket alternatively asserts in point one that it adequately pleaded conduct from which it can be inferred that Defendants were not acting in good faith for the interests of their clients or were motivated by self-interest," the opinion states. "Defendants argue that Branson’s Nantucket did not make this argument to the trial court and is barred from making it on appeal."
The company claimed that the attorneys’ actions were unjustified and directly caused financial losses by encouraging contract breaches.
The appeals court rejected these arguments, finding that Branson’s Nantucket failed to demonstrate the absence of justification required for a tortious interference claim.
The court noted that attorneys generally have the privilege to advise their clients, even if that advice affects third-party contracts unless they use wrongful means such as fraud, threats or defamation.
"Liberally construing all allegations favorably to Branson’s Nantucket, they supported only that Defendants provided legal advice to their clients in the course of their representation and did not support a claim that Defendants engaged in any fraud, collusion, or malicious or tortious acts such that their conduct would fall within the exceptional circumstances rule," the opinion states. "Specifically, Branson’s Nantucket did not allege facts related to their claims demonstrating that Defendants employed wrongful means, did not act in good faith for the interest of their clients, or were motivated by self-interest and, therefore, were not acting in the scope of their privileged attorney-client relationship. The trial court did not err in dismissing Count I with prejudice."
Branson’s Nantucket did not present sufficient facts to support claims that the attorneys acted in bad faith or for personal gain, the court document states.
Additionally, the court ruled that the civil conspiracy claim could not stand because it was based on the underlying tortious interference claim, which had already been deemed legally insufficient.
"In this case, as discussed in point one, Branson’s Nantucket failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate the underlying tort of tortious interference with a business expectancy, therefore, its claim of civil conspiracy necessarily failed," Judge Thomas N. Chapman wrote in the opinion. "The trial court properly dismissed Count II alleging civil conspiracy against Defendants. Point two is denied."
The attorneys' offices declined to comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District case number: SD38350