{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"landlord-tenant","label":"Landlord / Tenant","description":null,"totalCases":57,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":8},{"year":2019,"count":9},{"year":2020,"count":7},{"year":2021,"count":9},{"year":2022,"count":5},{"year":2023,"count":6},{"year":2024,"count":7},{"year":2025,"count":6}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113028:2025-08-19","opinionId":"d6381652-98fb-50e8-9462-665ee3b15077","slug":"body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","caseName":"Body Treats Etc., LLC, Respondent, vs. Matt Tarrillion, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113028","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Matt Tarrillion appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Body Treats Etc., LLC, in an unlawful detainer action. Body Treats claimed Tarrillion was a month-to-month sublessee, while Tarrillion argued he was a co-tenant under a written lease. The appellate court denied Body Treats' motion to dismiss for mootness and reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the written lease clearly established Tarrillion as a co-tenant with equal rights to possession, making the unlawful detainer judgment against the weight of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/body-treats-etc-llc-respondent-v-matt-tarrillion-appellant-113028","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86929:2025-06-17","opinionId":"45a7f9f9-c5e1-5f55-a5aa-1a683dd622c6","slug":"sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","caseName":"S.M.\nvs. \nCurtis Deierling","caseNumber":"WD86929","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"S.M. filed a petition for an Adult Order of Protection against her former tenant, Curtis Deierling, alleging stalking. The circuit court granted the full order of protection, which Deierling appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of stalking and that the appeal was moot due to the order's expiration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the public interest exception to mootness applied and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of stalking under the Adult Abuse Act.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","evidence","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sm-v-curtis-deierling-d86929","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112761:2025-06-17","opinionId":"86510354-4acd-50d3-9fda-d4379072d81b","slug":"ridgetop-manor-llc-respondent-v-lisa-m-white-appellant-112761","caseName":"Ridgetop Manor, LLC, Respondent, vs. Lisa M. White, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112761","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lisa White appealed a circuit court judgment granting Ridgetop Manor, LLC possession of an apartment in an unlawful detainer action. White argued that Ridgetop failed to comply with statutory service of process requirements and that she did not waive her jurisdictional defense by filing a counterclaim. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Ridgetop violated § 534.090 by not attempting personal service before other methods and that White preserved her jurisdictional defense. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ridgetop-manor-llc-respondent-v-lisa-m-white-appellant-112761","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87304:2025-04-29","opinionId":"01ae60e8-df08-597f-9aaf-f8636de90478","slug":"rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","caseName":"RFJ Auto Properties, LLC\nvs. \nKnipp Real Estate, LLC, Knipp Real Estate II, LLC\nFletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC\nCorwin Imports of Jefferson City, III, Timothy F. Corwin","caseNumber":"WD87304","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Fletcher Automotive No. 28, LLC, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to RFJ Auto Properties, LLC, in a dispute over a commercial lease's termination date. The trial court had certified its judgment as final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). The appellate court, however, determined it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court's judgment was not a final, appealable judgment, as it did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220042","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rfj-auto-properties-llc-v-knipp-real-estate-llc-knipp-real-estate-ii-llc-d87304","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86868:2024-12-17","opinionId":"778eccd2-0860-5e93-8437-9c6cd15c3e43","slug":"derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","caseName":"Derek Fuemmeler, Et al.\nvs.\nMike and Mark Farms, LLC, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86868","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tenants Derek Fuemmeler and Steven Cleeton appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Mike and Mark Farms, LLC, et al. (Tregnago Defendants) and John and Cindy Winkleblack (Winkleblacks), and the denial of their own motion for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether two farm leases satisfied the statute of frauds, Section 432.010, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the leases provided sufficient means to identify the properties with reasonable certainty, thereby satisfying the statute of frauds. The court also noted that summary judgment was improperly granted to non-moving parties.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derek-fuemmeler-et-al-v-mike-and-mark-farms-llc-et-al-d86868","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111788:2024-08-27","opinionId":"3e3b0561-d8ad-5f5e-9bbe-a8f97cec956a","slug":"grace-herr-ally-burke-and-majorie-alvord-respondents-v-min-zhao-appellant-111788","caseName":"Grace Herr, Ally Burke, and Majorie Alvord, Respondents, vs. Min Zhao, Appellant, Yanqun Dong, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED111788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-27","year":2024,"display_summary":"Min Zhao and Yanqun Dong (Landlords) appealed a judgment in favor of Grace Herr, Ally Burke, and Marjorie Alvord (Tenants) on their claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability and breach of the rental agreement. The Landlords argued the trial court erroneously applied the law by basing its judgment on de minimis conditions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the conditions, including mold, leaks, live wires, and inoperable air conditioning, were not de minimis and materially affected the tenants' life, health, and safety. The court also denied the Tenants' motion to strike the Landlords' brief, opting to review the appeal on its merits despite Rule 84.04 violations.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","contracts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/grace-herr-ally-burke-and-majorie-alvord-respondents-v-min-zhao-appellant-111788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111960:2024-04-30","opinionId":"6f36619e-1c73-51f9-822d-b71450238d47","slug":"t-westfall-plaza-wcr-mo-llc-appellant-v-sjb-restaurant-grp-llc-and-cortez-111960","caseName":"T. Westfall Plaza WCR MO, LLC, Appellant, v. SJB Restaurant Grp., LLC, and Cortez Burnett, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111960","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Westfall Plaza WCR MO, LLC, appealed the circuit court's judgment setting aside a default judgment entered in its favor against SJB Restaurant Group, LLC, and its guarantor, Cortez Burnett. Westfall argued that the circuit court erred because Respondents failed to establish good cause or a meritorious defense under Rule 74.05(d). The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Burnett's mere testimonial denial of service was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required to impeach a presumptively valid sheriff's return, thus failing to establish good cause.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","landlord-tenant","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207656","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/t-westfall-plaza-wcr-mo-llc-appellant-v-sjb-restaurant-grp-llc-and-cortez-111960","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111565:2024-03-19","opinionId":"86a64406-8d1d-5a3f-b685-ff44d67c37b2","slug":"monica-jackson-appellant-v-annie-sykes-respondent-111565","caseName":"Monica Jackson, Appellant, vs. Annie Sykes, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111565","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Monica Jackson appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Annie Sykes regarding a security deposit dispute. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Jackson, acting pro se, failed to comply with the mandatory appellate briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. Specifically, her brief contained an argumentative statement of facts with inadequate record references, multifarious points relied on, and deficient argument sections that failed to specify the correct standard of review or adequately support legal assertions.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/monica-jackson-appellant-v-annie-sykes-respondent-111565","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111898:2024-03-12","opinionId":"8de5b571-1358-5076-a89f-fe4c13fbb0ee","slug":"steve-brown-authorized-agent-and-assignee-of-the-trustees-of-the-brown-fa-111898","caseName":"Steve Brown Authorized Agent and Assignee of the Trustees of the Brown Family Trust, Respondent, vs. Pro Basement, Inc., et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111898","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Pro Basement, Inc. and Lawrence Otte (Appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment entered against them for breach of lease and unlawful detainer. The Appellants argued the trial court abused its discretion because they presented meritorious defenses. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Appellants established a meritorious defense, which required the default judgment to be set aside.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","landlord-tenant","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206346","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steve-brown-authorized-agent-and-assignee-of-the-trustees-of-the-brown-fa-111898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85514:2023-12-12","opinionId":"3646e3b9-3586-5d0d-93a7-1816e48631d1","slug":"amanda-everett-v-valerie-vance-and-beverley-vance-d85514","caseName":"Amanda Everett\nvs. \nValerie Vance and Beverley Vance","caseNumber":"WD85514","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Amanda Everett sued Valerie Vance and Beverley Vance, seeking to set aside a prior consent judgment and garnishment orders, alleging they were fraudulently procured by Valerie Vance. The circuit court vacated the prior judgment, enjoined Valerie Vance, and awarded Everett damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Beverley Vance's appeal for lack of standing because claims against her were voluntarily dismissed before judgment. The court affirmed the judgment against Valerie Vance, rejecting her arguments regarding personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court's authority to entertain an independent action for fraud.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/amanda-everett-v-valerie-vance-and-beverley-vance-d85514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111931:2023-09-12","opinionId":"f97d751e-aaf5-58d9-a594-1b75717310ec","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-david-hutchinson-relator-v-the-honorable-antonio-111931","caseName":"State of Missouri Ex Rel. David Hutchinson, Relator, v. The Honorable Antonio M. Manansala, Associate Circuit Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111931","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"David Hutchinson, a tenant in an underlying action seeking to terminate his tenancy, filed a motion for change of judge which the associate circuit judge, Antonio M. Manansala, overruled as untimely. Hutchinson then sought a writ of prohibition, arguing his motion was timely filed. The appellate court agreed, holding that the motion was timely under § 517.061, RSMo, because it was filed more than five days before the final trial setting. Consequently, the court made the preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, finding the respondent judge lacked authority to proceed.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201018","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-david-hutchinson-relator-v-the-honorable-antonio-111931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85461:2023-07-25","opinionId":"2ac1819f-f83c-5be2-b2c0-7b0fb86d0226","slug":"ken-auman-v-janiece-richard-d85461","caseName":"Ken Auman\nvs.\nJaniece Richard","caseNumber":"WD85461","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Ken Auman appealed pro se from a circuit court judgment granting summary judgment to Janiece Richard on her unlawful detainer claim. Auman's initial and amended briefs were found to be substantially deficient, failing to comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing requirements. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, stating it could not reach the merits without speculating or acting as Auman's advocate.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197837","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ken-auman-v-janiece-richard-d85461","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85365:2023-05-16","opinionId":"4c7e2ee2-3624-5048-bc5c-3d4341a36675","slug":"pendragon-properties-llc-v-latanya-haywood-d85365","caseName":"Pendragon Properties, LLC.\nvs.\nLatanya Haywood","caseNumber":"WD85365","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"Latanya Haywood appealed from a consent judgment entered in an unlawful detainer action filed by her former landlord, Pendragon Properties, LLC. Haywood contended the circuit court erred in several rulings, including denying a change of judge and awarding unsupported damages. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Haywood had no right to appeal because she consented to the judgment and was therefore not an aggrieved party.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pendragon-properties-llc-v-latanya-haywood-d85365","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111217:2023-05-09","opinionId":"9b16e1f4-ddbd-509f-a302-fffd5ccea494","slug":"yes-chancellor-farms-llc-plaintiffrespondent-v-vicki-merkel-et-al-defenda-111217","caseName":"Yes Chancellor Farms, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Vicki Merkel, et al., Defendants/Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111217","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"Yes Chancellor Farms, LLC, a mobile home park owner, sued Vicki Merkel and other residents for rent and possession, and the trial court granted summary judgment, including attorney fees against all defendants. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the summary judgment for rent and possession and the award of attorney fees against the Estate of Vicki Merkel. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees against the other individual residents, finding no contractual or statutory basis for such an award against non-tenants. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195303","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/yes-chancellor-farms-llc-plaintiffrespondent-v-vicki-merkel-et-al-defenda-111217","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110910:2023-05-02","opinionId":"020ef282-209d-561b-a54e-d9f61e206df0","slug":"lt-group-usa-llc-respondent-v-mounanet-clark-appellant-110910","caseName":"LT Group USA, LLC, Respondent, v. Mounanet Clark, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110910","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-02","year":2023,"display_summary":"LT Group USA, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against Mounanet Clark, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of LT Group. Clark appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal due to numerous serious briefing deficiencies. The court found that Clark's pro se brief failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, including the statement of facts, points relied on, argument sections, and the appendix. Consequently, the court declined to reach the merits of the case.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195096","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lt-group-usa-llc-respondent-v-mounanet-clark-appellant-110910","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85113:2022-12-06","opinionId":"2b6bf177-6643-5ad5-8f64-b71c0ff257a4","slug":"joemo-holdings-llc-v-unique-creations-salon-llc-and-adam-meisinger-and-ta-d85113","caseName":"Joemo Holdings, LLC \nvs. \nUnique Creations Salon, LLC, and Adam Meisinger and Tamara Meisinger","caseNumber":"WD85113","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Joemo Holdings, LLC (Landlord) sued Unique Creations Salon, LLC (Tenant) for rent and possession, to which Tenant counterclaimed for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the Landlord, and Tenant appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Tenant should have sought a trial de novo under section 512.180.1, as the case was tried without a jury before an associate circuit judge under Chapter 535. The matter was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190959","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joemo-holdings-llc-v-unique-creations-salon-llc-and-adam-meisinger-and-ta-d85113","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85006:2022-09-20","opinionId":"b4feaa5f-f37c-5509-b842-d8fe92247162","slug":"jack-murphy-v-neil-steiner-et-al-d85006","caseName":"Jack Murphy \nvs. \nNeil Steiner, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85006","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"Neil Steiner appealed pro se from a summary judgment granted to Jack Murphy on an unlawful detainer claim. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Steiner's brief failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, specifically regarding points relied on, argument development, and the statement of facts. The court noted that Steiner had previously been given an opportunity to rectify similar deficiencies but failed to do so adequately.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jack-murphy-v-neil-steiner-et-al-d85006","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110459:2022-08-30","opinionId":"4af1e21d-bf17-5941-84d5-51e8259cf00f","slug":"green-street-2900-investors-llc-respondent-v-the-st-louis-woodworks-inc-a-110459","caseName":"Green Street 2900 Investors, LLC, Respondent, vs. The St. Louis Woodworks, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110459","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-08-30","year":2022,"display_summary":"Green Street 2900 Investors, LLC, initiated an unlawful detainer action against The St. Louis Woodworks, Inc., after Woodworks remained on the leased property past the lease expiration date. The trial court granted summary judgment for Green Street, concluding that Woodworks' option to renew the lease was unenforceable due to an indefinite rental rate. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the fourth amendment to the lease, which required a \"negotiated and agreed\" market rate, superseded the original lease's market rent calculation and constituted an unenforceable \"agreement to agree.\"","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188816","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/green-street-2900-investors-llc-respondent-v-the-st-louis-woodworks-inc-a-110459","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85073:2022-06-28","opinionId":"e89e0ffa-0b57-5839-b674-06d48afda055","slug":"voepel-property-management-inc-as-agent-for-the-owner-isla-property-compa-d85073","caseName":"Voepel Property Management Inc as Agent for the owner Isla Property Company, LLC\nvs. \nTimika Bates","caseNumber":"WD85073","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Timika Bates appealed a judgment in favor of Voepel Property Management Inc. in an unlawful detainer action. Bates argued the trial court failed to consider her defense regarding a breach of habitability. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Bates failed to provide a transcript of the trial court proceedings, which made it impossible to review her claims of error.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187639","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/voepel-property-management-inc-as-agent-for-the-owner-isla-property-compa-d85073","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84545:2022-04-12","opinionId":"37267d75-dc66-5c86-9cc6-22bf25b52e4d","slug":"arr-v-tau-kappa-epsilon-fraternity-inc-and-delta-nu-teke-house-associatio-d84545","caseName":"A.R.R.\nvs. \nTau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, Inc., and Delta Nu Teke House Association","caseNumber":"WD84545","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-04-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"A.R.R. appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, Inc. and TKE Delta Nu House Association on her claims of premises liability, negligent supervision, and general negligence. A.R.R.'s claims stemmed from an alleged sexual assault at a fraternity Halloween party. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the defendants did not owe a duty to A.R.R. under any of her asserted theories of liability.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","premises-liability","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arr-v-tau-kappa-epsilon-fraternity-inc-and-delta-nu-teke-house-associatio-d84545","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109593:2021-12-28","opinionId":"3da3cf53-773d-5147-be2d-006a16c2a067","slug":"j-m-securities-llc-appellant-v-nikki-m-kennedy-respondent-109593","caseName":"J & M Securities, LLC, Appellant, vs. Nikki M. Kennedy, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109593","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-12-28","year":2021,"display_summary":"J&M Securities, as assignee of The Century Group, Inc., sued Nikki Kennedy to recover amounts owed under a residential lease agreement. Kennedy asserted a counterclaim for breach of warranty of habitability, failure to return a security deposit, and set-off. The circuit court found Kennedy owed J&M $813.00 but also found J&M owed Kennedy $1,005.00, resulting in a net judgment of $192.00 in favor of Kennedy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a money judgment cannot be entered against an assignee for an amount exceeding the assignee's claim, where the overpayment was made to the assignor.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183020","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/j-m-securities-llc-appellant-v-nikki-m-kennedy-respondent-109593","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84279:2021-12-07","opinionId":"2958d6c3-096a-5e16-8253-2f6dcaefd3b8","slug":"joe-d-brown-in-his-capacity-as-successor-trustee-of-the-george-e-heard-re-d84279","caseName":"Joe D. Brown, in his Capacity as Successor Trustee of the George E. Heard Revocable Trust, Dated February 24, 2000\nvs. \nDouglas Lee Barnes and Kyle Barnes","caseNumber":"WD84279","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-12-07","year":2021,"display_summary":"Douglas and Kyle Barnes appealed a summary judgment granting Joe D. Brown, as Successor Trustee of the George E. Heard Revocable Trust, possession of real property in an unlawful detainer action. The Barneses resided on the property under an oral agreement to perform maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, the tenancy was properly terminated, and the Barneses' claims regarding title or a gift of the property were not cognizable in an unlawful detainer action. The court also held that the unlawful detainer claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joe-d-brown-in-his-capacity-as-successor-trustee-of-the-george-e-heard-re-d84279","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109472:2021-11-16","opinionId":"65948527-f306-5ef3-817f-70cf246c4984","slug":"theresa-marie-barbero-appellant-v-wilhoit-properties-inc-respondent-109472","caseName":"Theresa Marie Barbero, Appellant, vs. Wilhoit Properties, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109472","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-11-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Theresa Marie Barbero, a pro se appellant, appealed a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Pike County in favor of Wilhoit Properties, Inc., following a bench trial on her claims including negligence, harassment, and discrimination. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Barbero's brief and the record she compiled contained numerous and substantial violations of Supreme Court Rules 81.12, 84.04, and 84.13. These procedural deficiencies prevented the court from competently reviewing the merits of her appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=182018","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/theresa-marie-barbero-appellant-v-wilhoit-properties-inc-respondent-109472","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109244:2021-09-14","opinionId":"c26b52ef-220e-52ac-8836-53f2aa4acc15","slug":"danielle-goser-respondent-v-david-boyer-appellant-109244","caseName":"Danielle Goser, Respondent, vs. David Boyer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED109244","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-09-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Danielle Goser purchased real property at a sheriff's sale following an execution on a money judgment against David Boyer, who resided at the property. Goser then filed an unlawful detainer action to gain possession, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed, holding that Goser lacked standing to bring an unlawful detainer action because the sale was not a foreclosure on a mortgage or deed of trust, and Goser did not have prior possession of the property as required for the intruder class.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danielle-goser-respondent-v-david-boyer-appellant-109244","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83885:2021-07-27","opinionId":"faf656ee-1b29-5101-81db-c1886f038f7c","slug":"jack-murphy-v-neil-steiner-et-al-d83885","caseName":"Jack Murphy\nvs. \nNeil Steiner, et al","caseNumber":"WD83885","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-07-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jack Murphy, as agent and owner of Dahle's Property Solutions, LLC, sought possession and damages from Neil and Deborah Steiner on theories of unlawful detainer and rent and possession. The trial court granted summary judgment to Murphy on the unlawful detainer claim, awarding possession and monetary damages. On appeal, the Western District dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's judgment was not final because it failed to resolve the pending rent and possession claim and the Steiners' affirmative claim for relief.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jack-murphy-v-neil-steiner-et-al-d83885","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36872:2021-07-27","opinionId":"66211bb5-4a2d-59bf-968d-132ea04b6abf","slug":"christine-oconnell-and-greg-oconnell-plaintiffs-respondents-v-leechia-raq-d36872","caseName":"CHRISTINE O'CONNELL and GREG O'CONNELL, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nLEECHIA RAQUEL DEERING, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36872","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Christine and Greg O'Connell filed an unlawful detainer action against Leechia Raquel Deering, their former tenant, seeking immediate possession, unpaid rent, late fees, and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the O'Connells on all claims. On appeal, the Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment regarding immediate possession, late fees, and attorney fees, finding that Deering became a month-to-month tenant by the terms of the lease and was not given proper notice to vacate under Missouri law. The court affirmed the award for unpaid rent and remanded the case for an amended judgment.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-oconnell-and-greg-oconnell-plaintiffs-respondents-v-leechia-raq-d36872","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83911:2021-07-27","opinionId":"3b8d1c53-41cc-5161-87e9-4c5a21dcdca1","slug":"melissa-k-espinosa-trustee-of-the-melissa-k-espinosa-revocable-trust-v-er-d83911","caseName":"Melissa K. Espinosa, Trustee of the Melissa K. Espinosa Revocable Trust\nvs. \nEric Baker and Veronica Baker","caseNumber":"WD83911","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-07-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"Melissa K. Espinosa, as trustee, sued Eric and Veronica Baker for unlawful detainer after they failed to vacate premises following the mutual termination of their lease due to a mold infestation. The trial court awarded Espinosa possession, statutory double damages, physical damages, and attorney fees. On appeal, the Bakers challenged the classification of their tenancy and attempted to raise a warranty of habitability claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Bakers were holdover tenants and that a warranty of habitability claim is outside the scope of an unlawful detainer action. The court also denied Espinosa's motion for attorney fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179016","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-k-espinosa-trustee-of-the-melissa-k-espinosa-revocable-trust-v-er-d83911","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109169:2021-05-04","opinionId":"72caa9d8-6555-545e-a2f8-908b302bcdc9","slug":"jm-securities-llc-appellant-v-hani-s-aziz-and-sanaa-a-kahalah-aziz-respon-109169","caseName":"J&M Securities LLC, Appellant, v. Hani S. Aziz and Sanaa A. Kahalah-Aziz, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109169","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-04","year":2021,"display_summary":"J & M Securities, LLC sued Hani S. Aziz and Sanaa A. Kahalah-Aziz for damages related to a residential lease agreement, seeking reimbursement for repairs and cleaning. The trial court granted summary judgment for the tenants, concluding the claim was time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations. On appeal, J & M Securities argued the ten-year statute of limitations for actions upon a written promise to pay money should apply. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the lease's reimbursement clauses were conditional promises, not an unconditional acknowledgment of indebtedness, thus the five-year statute of limitations correctly applied.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177130","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jm-securities-llc-appellant-v-hani-s-aziz-and-sanaa-a-kahalah-aziz-respon-109169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36781:2020-12-09","opinionId":"89d7455d-ae8e-5f66-8be1-b47118e66906","slug":"west-plains-regional-animal-shelter-plaintiff-respondent-v-willard-schnur-d36781","caseName":"WEST PLAINS REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nWILLARD SCHNURBUSCH, Defendant-Appellant\nand CAROL SCHNURBUSCH, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36781","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-09","year":2020,"display_summary":"Willard Schnurbusch appealed a summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action that awarded immediate possession of property to West Plains Regional Animal Shelter. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot. The court found that Schnurbusch voluntarily surrendered possession of the property before a writ of possession was issued, thereby acquiescing to the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/west-plains-regional-animal-shelter-plaintiff-respondent-v-willard-schnur-d36781","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83433:2020-09-15","opinionId":"794d776f-65b4-561d-b068-2b7fa0c85c46","slug":"michelle-eickhoff-et-al-v-douglas-gelbach-et-al-d83433","caseName":"Michelle Eickhoff, Et Al.,\nvs. \nDouglas Gelbach, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD83433","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Michelle Eickhoff sued her landlords, Douglas and Rhonda Gelbach, for injuries sustained after falling down a staircase without a handrail at their rental property. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Gelbachs on claims of general negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and loss of consortium. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the landlords' retained control over the property and holding that city ordinances can define a landlord's common law duty for negligence claims. However, the court denied the claim that the landlord had a duty to disclose the ordinance, as the lack of a handrail was discoverable by the tenants.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","landlord-tenant","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165843","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michelle-eickhoff-et-al-v-douglas-gelbach-et-al-d83433","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82165:2020-06-02","opinionId":"2b712b97-8ce6-5f9d-9194-e838374c80c9","slug":"mila-homes-llc-v-donald-h-scott-and-carolyn-scott-d82165","caseName":"Mila Homes, LLC\nvs.\nDonald H. Scott and Carolyn Scott","caseNumber":"WD82165","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-06-02","year":2020,"display_summary":"Donald and Carolyn Scott appealed a default judgment entered against John Doe and Jane Doe in an unlawful detainer action brought by MILA Homes, LLC. The Scotts had filed a motion to intervene in the trial court, which was not ruled upon. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Scotts were not parties to the judgment and thus lacked standing to appeal, as the judgment was not entered against them and they were not aggrieved by it.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=158453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mila-homes-llc-v-donald-h-scott-and-carolyn-scott-d82165","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108040:2020-05-12","opinionId":"b3b120c9-f756-5d5a-a37e-0959d06e363c","slug":"jim-needy-respondent-v-john-hammond-appellant-108040","caseName":"Jim Needy, Respondent, vs. John Hammond, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108040","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"John Hammond appealed the denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in a landlord-tenant dispute for unpaid rent. The default judgment was issued by an associate circuit judge. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Hammond failed to apply for a trial de novo in the circuit court, as required by Section 512.180.1, prior to seeking appellate review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jim-needy-respondent-v-john-hammond-appellant-108040","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36099:2020-03-16","opinionId":"68ddc4d3-0c71-5c12-b36c-3d612b90bad2","slug":"edward-a-riley-ii-and-natalie-d-riley-plaintiffs-respondents-v-randall-zo-d36099","caseName":"EDWARD A. RILEY, II, and NATALIE D. RILEY, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nRANDALL ZOLL and LANDALL ZOLL, Defendants-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD36099","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-16","year":2020,"display_summary":"Edward and Natalie Riley initiated an unlawful detainer action against Randall and Landall Zoll, alleging the Zolls breached a farmland lease. The trial court found in favor of the Rileys, granting them immediate possession of the property. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, dismissed the Zolls' appeal as moot, determining that the Zolls had voluntarily vacated the farmland and their lease had expired, thus eliminating any practical effect a decision on the merits would have had.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=152064","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/edward-a-riley-ii-and-natalie-d-riley-plaintiffs-respondents-v-randall-zo-d36099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36351:2020-03-13","opinionId":"52e05658-b4f2-53db-a505-4ddf457578c7","slug":"minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","caseName":"MINOR A.T., by her natural father, and Next Friend R.T., Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nROGER and KIMBERLY SATTERFIELD, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nSTACEY WYATT, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36351","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-13","year":2020,"display_summary":"A minor child, A.T., through her father, sued Roger and Kimberly Satterfield for personal injuries from a dog bite. The Satterfields owned the property where the dog was kept by their tenant's roommate, Stacey Wyatt, who owned the dog. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Satterfields, finding insufficient evidence of vicious propensities or the Satterfields' knowledge thereof. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Satterfields could not be held liable as harborers of the dog because they did not make the animal part of their household, consistent with Missouri law on landlord liability for animal-related injuries.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82790:2020-03-03","opinionId":"73330c88-6220-56be-8aca-e405cd4bc847","slug":"i-70-mobile-city-inc-v-deidre-cartwright-d82790","caseName":"I-70 mobile City, Inc.\nvs.\nDeidre Cartwright","caseNumber":"WD82790","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-03-03","year":2020,"display_summary":"Deidre Cartwright appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her affirmative defense and counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability in an unlawful detainer action brought by I-70 Mobile City. The circuit court had entered judgment for I-70 for possession of the property. The appellate court affirmed, holding that claims for breach of the warranty of habitability are substantively barred in unlawful detainer actions because they do not concern the immediate right of possession.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/i-70-mobile-city-inc-v-deidre-cartwright-d82790","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36791:2020-02-23","opinionId":"cd3f1019-c198-518b-bd6b-395594006854","slug":"minor-jd-by-her-mother-and-next-friend-ao-plaintiff-appellant-v-richard-p-d36791","caseName":"Minor J.D., by her mother and Next Friend A.O., Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nRICHARD PARRISH, and MARY PARRISH, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nLEE RICHMOND, and STEPHANIE LOWER, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD36791","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Minor J.D., through her mother A.O., sued landlords Richard and Mary Parrish for personal injuries J.D. sustained from a dog bite on the landlords' property, where the dog was owned by their tenant. The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlords, concluding that the plaintiff could not produce evidence that the landlords owned, possessed, or harbored the dog. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Missouri common law does not extend liability for harm caused by domestic animals beyond owners, possessors, or harborers.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/minor-jd-by-her-mother-and-next-friend-ao-plaintiff-appellant-v-richard-p-d36791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82342:2019-12-10","opinionId":"93636782-1faa-50fc-b4d4-817fb2d680e8","slug":"tcn-investments-llc-v-superior-detail-lonnie-vaught-and-julie-vaught-d82342","caseName":"TCN Investments, LLC\nvs.\nSuperior Detail, Lonnie Vaught and Julie Vaught","caseNumber":"WD82342","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"TCN Investments, LLC, sued Superior Detail, LLC, and its guarantors, Lonnie and Julie Vaught, for breach of a commercial lease agreement. The trial court found in favor of TCN, awarding damages for unpaid rent, reletting costs, and restoration expenses, along with attorney's fees. On appeal, Superior challenged the trial court's interpretation of the lease regarding damage offsets, the inclusion of alteration costs as reletting expenses, and the award for landscaping restoration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all substantive issues but remanded the case for the sole purpose of determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees TCN incurred on appeal.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","landlord-tenant","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147057","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tcn-investments-llc-v-superior-detail-lonnie-vaught-and-julie-vaught-d82342","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82432:2019-12-10","opinionId":"d1d589b1-c0a2-5127-a37e-c95360f5be12","slug":"tracie-l-ostermeier-et-al-v-prime-properties-investments-inc-et-al-d82432","caseName":"Tracie L. Ostermeier, et al\nvs.\nPrime Properties Investments Inc., et al","caseNumber":"WD82432","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Tracie Ostermeier and Samantha Rice (Appellants) sued Prime Properties Investments, Inc., and Robb Steinbeck (Respondents) for damages arising from a bedbug infestation in their apartments. A jury found in favor of Appellants on negligence and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) claims, but denied punitive damages. Appellants appealed the denial of their motion for attorney fees under the MMPA and the exclusion of evidence relevant to punitive damages. The appellate court reversed the denial of attorney fees, finding the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on Appellants' pro bono representation, and remanded for reconsideration. The court affirmed the exclusion of evidence related to bedbug infestations in other buildings, finding no abuse of discretion.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","evidence","negligence","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147058","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tracie-l-ostermeier-et-al-v-prime-properties-investments-inc-et-al-d82432","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108174:2019-11-19","opinionId":"0ac5bf29-cda8-5734-a3a5-00b7830ca47e","slug":"keith-reynolds-respondent-v-keith-robben-and-david-kullberg-appellants-108174","caseName":"Keith Reynolds, Respondent, vs. Keith Robben and David Kullberg, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED108174","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-19","year":2019,"display_summary":"Keith Reynolds filed a landlord-tenant action against Keith Robben and David Kullberg for unpaid rent and possession of property, and an associate circuit judge entered judgment for Reynolds. Robben and Kullberg appealed this judgment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, clarifying that under the current version of § 512.180.1, the proper procedural remedy for Chapter 535 landlord-tenant actions tried without a jury before an associate circuit judge is a trial de novo, not a direct appeal to the appellate court.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/keith-reynolds-respondent-v-keith-robben-and-david-kullberg-appellants-108174","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35962:2019-11-12","opinionId":"db4f1420-0c78-514a-ba23-4fa535853a0f","slug":"donna-cowgur-plaintiff-appellant-v-joel-murphy-jessica-murphy-defendants-d35962","caseName":"DONNA COWGUR, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nJOEL MURPHY, JESSICA MURPHY, Defendants-Respondents\nJEFFERY SPROUS, LISA SPROUS and JOHN DOE REALTY, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD35962","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-12","year":2019,"display_summary":"Donna Cowgur sued Joel and Jessica Murphy for personal injuries sustained from falling into a hole on their property, which they leased to third parties. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Murphys, finding no genuine dispute that they lacked knowledge of the hole's existence. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Cowgur's evidence regarding the Murphys' right to inspect the property and a \"for sale\" sign did not create a reasonable inference of actual or constructive knowledge of the specific hole that caused her injury.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donna-cowgur-plaintiff-appellant-v-joel-murphy-jessica-murphy-defendants-d35962","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82282:2019-11-05","opinionId":"01927a69-7c86-5f70-a332-97f4cbf12974","slug":"fidelity-real-estate-company-v-joyce-e-norman-and-marsha-l-eaton-d82282","caseName":"Fidelity Real Estate Company\nvs.\nJoyce E. Norman and Marsha L. Eaton","caseNumber":"WD82282","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-11-05","year":2019,"display_summary":"Joyce Norman and Marsha Eaton (Tenants) appealed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Fidelity Real Estate Company (Landlord) in a contract action arising from a landlord/tenant relationship. Tenants argued that summary judgment was improperly granted due to inconsistencies in Landlord's exhibits and that the award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest via a nunc pro tunc order was improper. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the \"nunc pro tunc\" order was an amended judgment the trial court had jurisdiction to issue, and that summary judgment was proper because a prior case relied upon by Tenants was wrongly decided under the current summary judgment rules, and Tenants' response was ineffective.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/fidelity-real-estate-company-v-joyce-e-norman-and-marsha-l-eaton-d82282","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81885:2019-07-09","opinionId":"98ac737b-64b8-53b2-9af8-69b4694b413c","slug":"carlos-guerra-v-locarno-partners-lp-d81885","caseName":"Carlos Guerra\nvs.\nLocarno Partners, LP","caseNumber":"WD81885","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-07-09","year":2019,"display_summary":"Carlos Guerra appealed the circuit court's judgment, which ruled against him on his claims of intentional interference with contract and breach of contract, and in favor of Locarno Partners, LP, on its counterclaims for breach of lease agreements. The appellate court dismissed Guerra's appeal due to numerous and significant briefing deficiencies, including a nonsensical point relied on, an argumentative statement of facts, and undeveloped arguments, all in violation of Rule 84.04.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142102","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carlos-guerra-v-locarno-partners-lp-d81885","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81183:2019-04-09","opinionId":"5ec4c1c5-e116-551a-ab90-a0704cd0a615","slug":"osage-mobile-home-park-llc-v-lisa-jones-smothers-d81183","caseName":"Osage Mobile Home Park, LLC\nvs.\nLisa Jones (Smothers)","caseNumber":"WD81183","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-09","year":2019,"display_summary":"Lisa Jones appealed a judgment from the circuit court awarding Osage Mobile Home Park, LLC, damages and restitution of premises in an unlawful detainer action. Jones argued on appeal that the trial court misapplied a statute requiring 60 days' notice to vacate a mobile home lot. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Jones's argument was unpreserved for review because it was raised for the first time on appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/osage-mobile-home-park-llc-v-lisa-jones-smothers-d81183","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81785:2019-02-19","opinionId":"70b03c0e-088b-50b6-9032-3e35626e25b3","slug":"cityview-real-estate-services-llc-and-waldo-capital-management-llc-v-kc-a-d81785","caseName":"Cityview Real Estate Services, LLC and Waldo Capital Management, LLC\nvs.\nK.C. Auto Panel, Inc. and Jerry Vaughn, et al","caseNumber":"WD81785","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-02-19","year":2019,"display_summary":"Landowners Cityview Real Estate Services, LLC and Waldo Capital Management, LLC appealed a judgment in their unlawful detainer action against K.C. Auto Panel, Inc. and Jerry Vaughn. The Landowners challenged the trial court's conclusions that certain claims related to the Defendants' occupation of the premises were waived and that the Landowners would bear the expense of disposing of remaining personal property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding it was final for appeal and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding waiver and the allocation of property disposal expenses.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136941","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cityview-real-estate-services-llc-and-waldo-capital-management-llc-v-kc-a-d81785","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35684:2019-01-15","opinionId":"67ee7f99-1930-5726-9aa7-4981f54475ee","slug":"rick-darby-plaintiff-respondent-v-anita-j-mason-defendant-appellant-d35684","caseName":"RICK DARBY, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nANITA J. MASON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35684","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-01-15","year":2019,"display_summary":"Rick Darby sued Anita J. Mason for unpaid rent, possession of premises, and unlawful detainer. The trial court entered judgment for Darby after denying Mason's verbal motion for continuance. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred by denying Mason's mandatory request for a continuance as required by section 517.071.1 RSMo.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rick-darby-plaintiff-respondent-v-anita-j-mason-defendant-appellant-d35684","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81225:2018-12-04","opinionId":"7a71b100-5d24-532b-8e16-fd2e76ee9ed7","slug":"erik-fouts-v-regency-north-acquisition-llc-d81225","caseName":"Erik Fouts\nvs.\nRegency North Acquisition, LLC","caseNumber":"WD81225","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-12-04","year":2018,"display_summary":"Erik Fouts sued Regency North Acquisition, LLC, after falling on an exterior stairway in his apartment complex, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Regency North based on an exculpatory clause in the lease. On appeal, Fouts argued the clause was ambiguous, unenforceable as a contract of adhesion, and against public policy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Fouts's first two arguments unpreserved and rejecting the remaining arguments regarding enforceability and public policy.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","landlord-tenant","summary-judgment","negligence","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=133954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/erik-fouts-v-regency-north-acquisition-llc-d81225","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106391:2018-11-27","opinionId":"a750c17a-fc07-50d7-9219-e49783de36e5","slug":"kasey-l-tolliver-respondent-v-5-g-homes-llc-appellant-106391","caseName":"Kasey L. Tolliver, Respondent, vs. 5 G Homes, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106391","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-11-27","year":2018,"display_summary":"Kasey L. Tolliver sued her landlord, 5 G Homes, LLC, for breach of implied warranty of habitability due to water leaks and mold damage. 5 G Homes counterclaimed for unpaid rent. The circuit court ruled in favor of Tolliver on her claim and against 5 G Homes on its counterclaim. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that an exculpatory clause in a later lease was inapplicable to damages occurring under a prior lease, and that Tolliver was relieved of rent obligations due to the landlord's breach of the implied warranty of habitability.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","contracts","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=134055","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kasey-l-tolliver-respondent-v-5-g-homes-llc-appellant-106391","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105890:2018-10-23","opinionId":"111d4606-dfb4-5a04-b15f-25715610a543","slug":"peggy-crawford-appellant-v-distributor-operations-inc-respondent-105890","caseName":"Peggy Crawford, Appellant, v. Distributor Operations, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED105890","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-23","year":2018,"display_summary":"Peggy Crawford sued Distributor Operations, Inc. (DOI) for strict liability, negligence, and breach of lease related to lead pollution on property DOI had leased from her. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for DOI, asserting a statute of limitations defense. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding when the lead pollution damages were capable of ascertainment, which is crucial for determining when the five-year statute of limitations began to run.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/peggy-crawford-appellant-v-distributor-operations-inc-respondent-105890","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc95944:2018-07-03","opinionId":"478e06e1-4a35-557c-8ded-80961f3d8fb3","slug":"kohner-properties-inc-respondent-v-latasha-johnson-appellant-c95944","caseName":"Kohner Properties, Inc., Respondent, vs. Latasha Johnson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC95944","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2018-07-03","year":2018,"display_summary":"Latasha Johnson withheld rent from Kohner Properties due to a water leak and ceiling collapse, asserting a breach of the implied warranty of habitability as a defense and counterclaim. The circuit court barred her defense because she failed to deposit unpaid rent in custodia legis, relying on King v. Moorehead. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, clarifying that while King's pronouncement on the in custodia legis procedure was dicta, its long-standing application meant the circuit court did not err in relying on it. The Court held that, going forward, circuit courts have discretion to implement such a protective procedure on a case-by-case basis.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127319","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kohner-properties-inc-respondent-v-latasha-johnson-appellant-c95944","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35074:2018-06-29","opinionId":"8ccab3ff-786b-50e9-81aa-07be91ba2d20","slug":"john-bramer-plaintiff-respondent-v-rani-abston-defendant-appellant-d35074","caseName":"JOHN BRAMER, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nRANI ABSTON, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35074","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-29","year":2018,"display_summary":"Rani Abston appealed the denial of her motion to set aside a judgment entered against her in a landlord-tenant dispute with John Bramer. Abston argued the judgment was a void default judgment or should be set aside due to due process violations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that the judgment was not a default judgment because Abston had vigorously defended the claims, and Abston failed to preserve her constitutional challenges or provide a sufficient record to demonstrate error.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=127194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-bramer-plaintiff-respondent-v-rani-abston-defendant-appellant-d35074","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80437:2018-06-26","opinionId":"827d2438-626e-519e-a826-8502fd62e931","slug":"mjdz-llc-a-missouri-limited-liability-company-v-mario-de-la-cruz-and-dean-d80437","caseName":"MJDZ, L.L.C., A Missouri Limited Liability Company\nvs.\nMario De La Cruz and Deanna James","caseNumber":"WD80437","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-06-26","year":2018,"display_summary":"MJDZ, L.L.C. filed a rent and possession case against Mario De La Cruz and Deanna James, who asserted counterclaims for breach of implied warranty of habitability and damages. The trial court entered a judgment for MJDZ, but did not explicitly rule on the tenants' counterclaims. On appeal, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment, holding that the trial court's judgment failed to dispose of all claims and did not include an express determination that there was no just reason for delay.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126995","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mjdz-llc-a-missouri-limited-liability-company-v-mario-de-la-cruz-and-dean-d80437","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105540:2018-06-12","opinionId":"1176b9ce-0f38-5329-9c7e-1a8f36ceeaa6","slug":"fairmontmonticello-llc-plaintiffappellant-v-lxs-investments-inc-dba-the-d-105540","caseName":"Fairmont/Monticello, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. LXS Investments, Inc. d/b/a The Drunken Fish, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED105540","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-06-12","year":2018,"display_summary":"Fairmont/Monticello (Landlord) sued LXS Investments (Tenant) for unlawful detainer after rejecting Tenant's attempt to renew a commercial lease. Landlord argued Tenant was in default due to non-compliance, while Tenant claimed it was not in default because Landlord never provided notice. The trial court ruled for Tenant, finding an ambiguity between the lease's default and renewal clauses. The appellate court reversed, holding that the renewal clause, which did not require notice for default, controlled over the general default clause, thus Tenant was not entitled to renew.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","landlord-tenant","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=126296","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/fairmontmonticello-llc-plaintiffappellant-v-lxs-investments-inc-dba-the-d-105540","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd80758:2018-04-03","opinionId":"f4d80668-edc0-596f-88f1-20fbdad0cda7","slug":"terry-wallace-v-marjorie-frazier-d80758","caseName":"Terry Wallace\nvs.\nMarjorie Frazier","caseNumber":"WD80758","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-04-03","year":2018,"display_summary":"Marjorie Frazier appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of her former landlord, Terry Wallace, in an action for rent and possession. The circuit court had awarded Wallace $1,807 in rent, late fees, attorney's fees, and costs. The appellate court dismissed Frazier's appeal due to substantial deficiencies in her appellate brief, which failed to comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument section.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-wallace-v-marjorie-frazier-d80758","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112915:undated","opinionId":"fb33836a-1a1b-5d82-9bf9-469907400153","slug":"kevin-dochterman-respondent-v-shana-lindsey-appellant-112915","caseName":"Kevin Dochterman, Respondent, v. Shana Lindsey, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112915","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Shana Lindsey appealed a circuit court judgment in an unlawful detainer action, which awarded her landlord, Kevin Dochterman, immediate possession of the leased property and attorney's fees. Lindsey argued the court erred in awarding attorney's fees, among other points, including the sufficiency of notice and the impact of a bankruptcy stay. The appellate court affirmed the judgment granting Dochterman possession, finding Lindsey's other arguments unpersuasive, but reversed the award of attorney's fees. The court held that unlawful detainer statutes do not authorize such fees, and the lease's attorney's fee provision was inapplicable in this statutory action.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227778","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-dochterman-respondent-v-shana-lindsey-appellant-112915","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111617:undated","opinionId":"68208acd-fd5f-5965-a98e-292355767b5d","slug":"ida-catherine-adams-fka-ida-catherine-watring-appellant-v-diane-ware-et-a-111617","caseName":"Ida Catherine Adams, f/k/a Ida Catherine Watring, Appellant, v. Diane Ware, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111617","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Ida Catherine Adams, who held a life estate in a property, appealed the trial court's denial of her unlawful detainer petition against Diane Ware and others (Respondents). The trial court had found Adams' action barred by a three-year statute of limitations and that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between Adams and Respondents. The appellate court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for unlawful detainer begins to run upon written demand for possession, which Adams made within the statutory period. The court affirmed that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ida-catherine-adams-fka-ida-catherine-watring-appellant-v-diane-ware-et-a-111617","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113250:undated","opinionId":"6e9f5038-7f1d-5676-b573-a1925e61d027","slug":"capitol-south-inc-appellant-v-concord-fitness-mo-llc-respondent-113250","caseName":"Capitol South, Inc., Appellant, v. Concord Fitness MO, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113250","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Capitol South, Inc. (landlord) appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Concord Fitness MO, LLC (tenant) on its claim for unlawful detainer. The landlord argued it properly terminated the lease due to the tenant's repeated failure to pay rent, invoking a provision that allowed termination without notice or opportunity to cure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the landlord's termination was premature because the specific conditions for termination under the \"Repeated Default Provision\" of the lease had not yet been met.","primaryTopic":"landlord-tenant","topicSlugs":["landlord-tenant","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229375","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/capitol-south-inc-appellant-v-concord-fitness-mo-llc-respondent-113250","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87149:undated","opinionId":"72987a83-b1fa-5f84-af75-b102bf6258f6","slug":"elena-puga-and-nicole-edwards-on-behalf-of-themselves-and-all-others-simi-d87149","caseName":"Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated \nvs.\nNephrite Fund I, LLC, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD87149","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, on behalf of a class, appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Nephrite Fund I, LLC, et al. The underlying class action alleged negligence, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act concerning apartment conditions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that no valid settlement agreement was reached due to a lack of a meeting of the minds on the material term of lien prioritization. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","landlord-tenant","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elena-puga-and-nicole-edwards-on-behalf-of-themselves-and-all-others-simi-d87149","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]}]}