context: Accordingly, the trial court was not in a position to consider the new sale claim. Likewise, although able appellate counsel did an excellent job arguing the claim on appeal, this theory has not been preserved for consideration by this court.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: plaintiffs alternative argument that the loan modification was a separate sale under the MMPA not addressed where complaint only alleged that lender's actions occurred "in connection with the servicing of the ... mortgage"
citation_a.sentence: See also Wivell, 773 F.3d at 899 n. 2 (plaintiffs alternative argument that the loan modification was a separate sale under the MMPA not addressed where complaint only alleged that lender’s actions occurred “in connection with the servicing of the ... mortgage”); Groh v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 58461 (W.D.Mo.2015) (dismissal of MMPA claim based on lenders’ failure to timely finalize loan modification agreement was upheld where allegations did not relate to any acts or omissions connected with original loan and amended petition did not allege a separate sale).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 430 S.W.3d 296, 320-21
citation_b.parenthetical: plaintiff could not base civil conspiracy claim on two new independent causes of action not pleaded in his petition and only mentioned in his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment
citation_b.sentence: See Hibbs v. Berger, 430 S.W.3d 296, 320-21 (Mo.App.E.D.2014) (plaintiff could not base civil conspiracy claim on two new independent causes of action not pleaded in his petition and only mentioned in his response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment).