Section 7.46 Admissions of a Party-Opponent—Evidence Admissible

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

2. (§7.46) Admissions of a Party-Opponent—Evidence Admissible

Unlike declarations against interest, a statement does not need to be “against interest,” like those of nonparties, to constitute an admission. Still v. Ahnemann, 984 S.W.2d 568, 572 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Egelhoff v. Holt, 875 S.W.2d 543, 551 (Mo. banc 1994) (“The only requirement for an admission is that it be a relevant statement of a party offered by the party’s opponent.”).

A trial court should admit into evidence a statement by a party-opponent that constitutes an admission of a relevant ultimate fact in the lawsuit. In Coldwell Bankers-Gordon Co. Realtors v. Waters, 791 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990), the plaintiff sued to recover a real estate commission. During the defendant’s deposition, he admitted that he owed the plaintiff a commission; he disputed only the amount owed. The plaintiff asked the same question at trial, but the trial court sustained the defendant’s objection that the question called for a legal conclusion. That ruling was reversed on appeal. While a party’s legal conclusions are not admissible, admissions of fact are. The defendant’s statement that he owed the plaintiff a commission was an admission of an ultimate fact, rather than a legal conclusion, and should have been received in evidence.

On the other hand, in Foster v. Bi-State Development Agency, 668 S.W.2d 94, 96–97 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984), an allegation in a third-party petition seeking indemnification from the third-party defendants that the third-party plaintiff had been negligent was held not to be an admission because that allegation was not a factual statement, but instead was a legal conclusion.

A statement by the plaintiff in Parker v. Midwestern Distribution, Inc., 797 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990), was properly excluded because it did not constitute an admission of fact. The...