## Facts

- Mary L. Simmons, a real-estate agent living near Lake Lotawana, Missouri, began dating Charles W. Luebbert in 1994.
- During the relationship, Simmons was involved in divorce proceedings and filed for bankruptcy; she moved in with Luebbert and rented out her own home.
- Over time, Simmons frequently borrowed money from Luebbert. He regularly reminded her that she owed him money, and she occasionally made small repayments, sometimes from real-estate commissions.
- In March 1995, after an evening of drinking at Luebbert’s home and a discussion about whether Simmons would ever repay him, Simmons insisted on signing a written promissory note to reassure him.
- Simmons first completed a messy fill-in-the-blank note stating she owed Luebbert $12,200 at 10% interest, due in late December 1995.
- About two weeks later, Simmons wrote a second promissory note with the same essential terms, but in neater handwriting, and delivered it to Luebbert.
- In June 1995, when Simmons moved out, she wrote two $1,000 checks to Luebbert but asked him not to cash them yet; when he later attempted to cash them, payment had been stopped.
- Simmons never paid the amount stated in the promissory note.
- Luebbert sued Simmons to recover on the note (Count I). His petition also included a claim for additional alleged loans (Count II), and C.W. Luebbert Construction Co., Inc. sought payment for labor and materials (Count III).
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Luebbert on Count I (awarding $12,200 plus substantial interest and costs) and for Simmons on Counts II and III.
- Simmons appealed only the judgment on Count I, arguing (1) the photocopy of the note should not have been admitted and (2) the note was not an enforceable contract because there was no meeting of the minds; she claimed she had been drunk and signed it as a joke.
- At trial, Luebbert produced a photocopy of the second note and testified the originals were missing without serious fault on his part and that the copy was a true and accurate replica.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err under the best-evidence rule by admitting a photocopy and testimony to prove the promissory note when the original notes were unavailable?
2. Was the judgment enforcing the promissory note against the weight of the evidence because Simmons claimed there was no intent to form a binding repayment agreement (including claims of intoxication and joking)?

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment for Luebbert on Count I.
- The court held the best-evidence rule did not bar admission of the photocopy and related testimony because the originals were unavailable without serious fault of Luebbert, the copy was found accurate, and the essential terms of the note were not genuinely disputed.
- The court held the trial court’s finding of an enforceable agreement was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence; the trial court was entitled to reject Simmons’s “joke” and intoxication explanations based on credibility and the surrounding facts.

## Legal Principles

- The best-evidence rule applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of a writing and the writing’s terms are material and genuinely disputed.
- When an original writing is unavailable without serious fault of the proponent, secondary evidence (including a photocopy) may be admitted if shown to be a true and accurate replica.
- A signed promissory note stating a specific principal amount, interest rate, and due date is evidence of a binding repayment obligation; intent is determined from objective manifestations and the fact-finder may reject after-the-fact claims that the writing was a joke.
- In a court-tried case, the appellate court reviews for substantial evidence and will not reweigh credibility; conflicts in testimony are for the trial judge to resolve.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed enforcement of Simmons’s $12,200 promissory note, holding that a photocopy could be admitted where the originals were missing without serious fault and the copy was accurate, and that the trial court reasonably found Simmons intended to be bound despite her later claims that she was intoxicated and signed in jest.


Luebbert v. Simmons, 98 S.W.3d 72 (2003)