{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"property-real-estate","label":"Property / Real Estate","description":null,"totalCases":354,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":29},{"year":2019,"count":39},{"year":2020,"count":49},{"year":2021,"count":45},{"year":2022,"count":37},{"year":2023,"count":39},{"year":2024,"count":56},{"year":2025,"count":48},{"year":2026,"count":12}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38930:2026-03-12","opinionId":"b24b5946-b852-57a0-bf07-7965aa7af496","slug":"paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","caseName":"PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents\nv.\nWAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38930","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Paul and Jacqueline Metzger obtained summary judgment for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway located between their home and their neighbors, Wayne and Kathy Morelock. The Morelocks appealed, challenging the summary judgment on two points: that the elements for a prescriptive easement were not met, and that the trial court erred in considering an affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the undisputed facts established the prescriptive easement and that the affidavit was properly considered.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-metzger-and-jacqueline-metzger-respondents-v-wayne-morelock-and-kath-d38930","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87720:2026-03-03","opinionId":"e0998356-8d04-5a61-9bed-d11d787fb2db","slug":"kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","caseName":"Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm\nvs.\nGregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust","caseNumber":"WD87720","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2026-03-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gregory Stiens, individually and as trustee, appealed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims, and against Stiens's counterclaims. Stiens challenged evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the property description in the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on all points of error raised by Stiens regarding the trial proceedings and outcomes. However, the court remanded the case for the circuit court to amend the judgment to include proper legal descriptions of the disputed property awarded to the Rosenbohms.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-rosenbohm-trustee-of-the-kevin-and-michele-rosenbohm-family-trust-d-d87720","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:ed113073:2026-02-03","opinionId":"555ef382-cca7-5f10-96c2-654114bfe75d","slug":"arthur-f-daume-jr-and-gayle-c-daume-appellants-v-thomas-szepanksi-et-al-r-113073","caseName":"Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113073","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Arthur and Gayle Daume appealed the trial court's interpretation of a deeded easement for ingress and egress over their neighbors' private roadway. The trial court had construed the easement's \"non-commercial purposes\" limitation to prohibit agricultural use and restricted its scope to the Daumes and their immediate family. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that \"non-commercial\" does not categorically prohibit agricultural use unless for profit, and that the appurtenant easement allows the Daumes to authorize third parties for non-commercial ingress and egress.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arthur-f-daume-jr-and-gayle-c-daume-appellants-v-thomas-szepanksi-et-al-r-113073","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":"mo:sc101161:2026-01-23","opinionId":"5107f9d3-2209-58ac-b6f6-75130aa84c76","slug":"colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","caseName":"Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101161","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-23","year":2026,"display_summary":"Colleen Eikmeier and William Love, homeowners in a subdivision, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against their homeowners' association (HOA) after the legislature enacted a statute proscribing covenants from limiting solar panel installation. The circuit court denied relief, finding the statute could not apply to preexisting covenants. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute applies to all covenants, including those in existence before its effective date, and that this application does not violate the state constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws or impairment of contracts. The Court also found the HOA's rule prohibiting street-facing solar panels unenforceable as it adversely affected the cost or efficiency of the solar device.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230207","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-appellants-v-granite-springs-home-own-101161","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":"moappwd:wd87831:2025-12-30","opinionId":"f02d90f8-9ea3-5cce-8c27-4c95503358aa","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission\nvs.\nCounty Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature","caseNumber":"WD87831","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State Tax Commission initiated a mandamus action against Jackson County officials, seeking to compel compliance with its order to alter 2023 property tax assessments. The trial court dismissed the action, finding it barred by res judicata due to a prior voluntarily dismissed lawsuit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the current mandamus action was based on new ultimate facts—the County's refusal to comply with the Commission's August 6 Order—which arose after the dismissal of the first case, thus precluding the application of res judicata.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","administrative-law","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-state-tax-commission-v-county-executive-of-jacks-d87831","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":"moappwd:wd87646:2025-12-16","opinionId":"719ec01b-065b-5e87-93ba-ae7c84d1d7fb","slug":"cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","caseName":"Cody Joseph Enderle, Guardian of the Person of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, an Incapacitated Person, and Conservator of the Estate of Charles Fredrick Enderle, II, a Disabled Person\nvs.","caseNumber":"WD87646","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Enderle, as guardian and conservator for his father Charles Enderle, sued Richard Gercken and Gercken Kelsey L.L.C. to void a real estate transaction, alleging Charles lacked mental capacity, was unduly influenced, and the terms were unconscionable. The circuit court directed a verdict on the undue influence claim, a jury found Charles had contractual capacity, and the court ruled against unconscionability and granted Gercken's counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions, or the court's rulings on unconscionability and evidence.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228569","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cody-joseph-enderle-guardian-of-the-person-of-charles-fredrick-enderle-ii-d87646","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":"moappwd:parent-228554","opinionId":"8c9979e1-e1a5-54e6-9904-c02f6476754c","slug":"mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","caseName":"Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin\nvs.\nCity of Kearney, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin sued the City of Kearney for inverse condemnation, alleging soil erosion in their backyards due to the City's stormwater drainage system. The circuit court granted a directed verdict against Laughlin, finding no notice to the City of erosion on his property, but a jury found for the Davises and Kamms. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that Laughlin failed to prove notice, and that the Davises and Kamms properly sought damages for a partial taking, not a total taking, which was supported by the evidence. The court also affirmed its appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments regarding judgment finality and timely appeal.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-and-sherry-davis-and-david-and-denise-kamm-kevin-laughlin-v-city-of-d87389","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:wd87819:2025-12-09","opinionId":"29e6a29c-db34-51af-9ed4-701248304378","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","caseName":"In RE the Marriage of: James A. Starke\nvs.\nDeborah S. Starke","caseNumber":"WD87819","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deborah S. Starke (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to James A. Starke (Husband), specifically challenging the order to convey marital real estate to a third-party trust. The Wife contended that the trial court erred by ordering the conveyance of marital property to a non-party to the dissolution action, which violates Missouri law. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228275","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-james-a-starke-v-deborah-s-starke-d87819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"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":"moappd:ed113445:2025-12-09","opinionId":"9b461770-6889-5529-ac52-e5b05b65f663","slug":"collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","caseName":"Collector of Revenue, et al., Respondents, v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens, Defendant, Roland Hill, Jr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113445","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Roland Hill, Jr. appealed the trial court's judgment confirming a sheriff's sale of a property due to delinquent tax liens. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Hill's notice of appeal was untimely filed beyond the twenty-day statutory deadline set by section 92.845. The court held that this statutory timeframe controls over the general forty-day period in the Rules of Civil Procedure and that it lacked authority to grant leave for a late appeal as the six-month window had expired.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228380","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/collector-of-revenue-et-al-respondents-v-parcels-of-land-encumbered-with-113445","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":"moappwd:wd87250:2025-09-09","opinionId":"0d27cb6c-560b-5d0d-b2d4-4deca0918f19","slug":"anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","caseName":"Anthony E. Barron\nvs.\nMartha Parker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Catherine L. Brizendine (Deceased)","caseNumber":"WD87250","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony E. Barron sought specific performance of a contract to purchase Catherine Brizendine's farm. Brizendine's daughter, Martha Parker, acting as her representative, appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing that Brizendine lacked contractual capacity and was unduly influenced, and that the trial court erred in denying a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support Brizendine's capacity, no undue influence, and that a bench trial was appropriate for the equitable claim of specific performance.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-e-barron-v-martha-parker-individually-and-as-representative-of-th-d87250","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":"moappsd:sd38761:2025-09-04","opinionId":"68bfeac9-49e1-507f-b0f4-5ac64ee7da65","slug":"thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","caseName":"THOMAS BENZEN, et al., Respondents\nvs.\nJEFFREY B. WHEELER, et al., Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38761","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"A group of neighbors, including the Benzens and Schniedermeyers (Plaintiffs) and the Wheelers (Defendants), sued each other over various property disputes. The Wheelers appealed the circuit court's judgment granting Plaintiffs an easement by implication across a portion of the Wheelers' property. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, as modified, denying all three of the Wheelers' points on appeal regarding pleading, sufficiency of evidence for reasonable necessity, and the adequacy of the easement's legal description. The modification corrected the judgment to reference the correct count number for the implied easement.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-benzen-et-al-respondents-v-jeffrey-b-wheeler-et-al-appellants-d38761","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":"moappsd:sd38649:2025-08-26","opinionId":"66e32495-0614-54c4-bdd1-ff6bbff0f8ab","slug":"corporate-village-owners-association-inc-plaintiff-respondent-v-corporate-d38649","caseName":"CORPORATE VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCORPORATE VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant-Appellant and SOUTHERN BANK, Intervenor","caseNumber":"SD38649","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Corporate Village Owners Association, Inc. sued Corporate Village, LLC, seeking quiet title to undeveloped land within a condominium development and a declaratory judgment regarding development rights. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Association, declaring the undeveloped area a common element and that the Declarant's development rights had expired. The appellate court affirmed, deeming one point abandoned for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(e) and holding that the Declarant had not legally \"created\" additional units under the Uniform Condominium Act before the development rights expired.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/corporate-village-owners-association-inc-plaintiff-respondent-v-corporate-d38649","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:ed112875:2025-07-22","opinionId":"16ad2185-1fae-512b-aafd-0bee13dc20e9","slug":"tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","caseName":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, Respondent, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112875","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tabernacle Community Development Corporation purchased a property at a sheriff's sale under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law (MLRL). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) had previously recorded a lien on the property for unpaid sewer bills, pursuant to one of its ordinances. Tabernacle filed a quiet title action to extinguish the MSD lien, arguing the MLRL supersedes the MSD ordinance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tabernacle, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the MLRL statute prevails over the MSD ordinance and extinguishes the lien.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tabernacle-community-development-corporation-respondent-v-the-metropolita-112875","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:ed112825:2025-07-08","opinionId":"16cb8130-1e9e-51d9-9311-9a5cd6a1178b","slug":"bellemeade-homeowners-association-appellant-v-tyler-taylor-et-al-responde-112825","caseName":"Bellemeade Homeowners Association, Appellant, vs. Tyler Taylor, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112825","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bellemeade Homeowners Association sued Tyler and Shana Taylor for declaratory judgment and breach of contract after the Taylors erected a fence that Bellemeade deemed non-compliant with its Declaration of Trust and Restrictions. The trial court ruled in favor of the Taylors, finding the fencing restriction ambiguous and waived by Bellemeade's inconsistent enforcement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Declaration unambiguously required fencing to start at the rear corners of the residence and that its anti-waiver provision preserved Bellemeade's right to enforce the restriction.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222204","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bellemeade-homeowners-association-appellant-v-tyler-taylor-et-al-responde-112825","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:ed112720:2025-06-24","opinionId":"cf0c62ea-1f2d-5fb0-9db8-30ab301d1a6d","slug":"claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-city-of-wildwood-respondent-112720","caseName":"Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. City of Wildwood, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112720","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Claymont Development, LLC appealed the dismissal of its petition challenging the constitutionality of zoning ordinances enacted by the City of Wildwood, which subjected its property to additional development regulations. The trial court had dismissed the petition, concluding the claims were not ripe for adjudication. The appellate court reversed, holding that Claymont's constitutional challenges to the ordinances were ripe, as the ordinances directly impacted its development plans and presented predominantly legal questions with fully developed historical facts.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221536","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-city-of-wildwood-respondent-112720","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":"moappsd:sd38365:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8a5aa9a0-a83c-56cf-bbd0-7df69b6d243d","slug":"gordon-bundy-and-marlene-bundy-trustees-of-the-gordon-g-bundy-and-marlene-d38365","caseName":"GORDON BUNDY and MARLENE BUNDY, trustees of the Gordon G. Bundy and Marlene K. Bundy Trust dated December 13, 2017, Appellants\nv.\nBRETT RAPIEN and TRISHA RAPIEN, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38365","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Neighboring property owners, the Bundys and Rapiens, sued each other over the use and maintenance of a shared gravel road easement. The trial court granted injunctive relief, dictating specific maintenance responsibilities and restrictions for portions of the road. On appeal, the Bundys argued the trial court misapplied the law. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that a statutory remedy under Chapter 228 RSMo provided an adequate remedy at law, precluding equitable injunctive relief, and that the injunction granted exceeded the scope of the pleadings and evidence.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gordon-bundy-and-marlene-bundy-trustees-of-the-gordon-g-bundy-and-marlene-d38365","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":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38385:2025-06-16","opinionId":"ffbdab30-966a-570a-aea9-9338e0ccd4e4","slug":"candace-harrell-kyle-candace-harrell-kyle-personal-representative-of-the-d38385","caseName":"CANDACE HARRELL KYLE, CANDACE HARRELL KYLE, Personal Representative of the Estate of GEORGE L. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv\nCAROLYN FOWLER, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of VERNON RAY FOWLER, and as Trustee Of the Joint Revocable Living Trust Indenture of Vernon Ray Fowler and Carolyn A. Fowler dated June 21, 2011, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38385","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Candace Harrell Kyle sued Carolyn Fowler over a one-half interest in a 75.55-acre property, seeking cancellation of a deed, a constructive trust, and damages for breach of an oral contract. The trial court granted relief to Kyle on these claims. On appeal, the Southern District of Missouri vacated the trial court's judgment, holding that the claim for cancellation of the deed was time-barred by the 10-year statute of limitations and that the alleged oral contract for an interest in land was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/candace-harrell-kyle-candace-harrell-kyle-personal-representative-of-the-d38385","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":"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":"moappd:ed112961:2025-06-10","opinionId":"7745a6ab-228e-51cd-aa15-bcff425075d2","slug":"aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","caseName":"Aaron Russell Roesch, Appellant, vs. Brittany Leigh Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, L.L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112961","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Aaron Roesch sued Brittany Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, LLC, seeking to enforce an oral agreement for the sale of real property through a constructive trust. Roesch alleged Sheffer agreed to purchase a property for his benefit and then sell it to him, but later demanded a significantly higher price. The trial court dismissed Roesch's petition, citing the statute of frauds and failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Roesch failed to adequately plead a constructive trust claim because he did not allege Sheffer accepted his tendered payment, which is necessary to establish unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","trusts","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","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:ed112984:2025-06-10","opinionId":"88ce913f-2132-5f95-ac9e-a4f85899d6ba","slug":"sean-dougherty-appellant-v-coppergate-commons-condominium-association-res-112984","caseName":"Sean Dougherty, Appellant, vs. Coppergate Commons Condominium Association, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112984","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Sean Dougherty appealed the trial court's judgment striking his pleadings and entering a default judgment in favor of Coppergate Commons Condominium Association as a sanction for his repeated failure to comply with discovery orders. Dougherty also challenged the award of attorneys' fees and the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions or the award of attorneys' fees. The court also granted Coppergate's motion for appellate attorneys' fees and remanded for a determination of the amount.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sean-dougherty-appellant-v-coppergate-commons-condominium-association-res-112984","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:ed112810:2025-06-03","opinionId":"4e5dc0d4-79ba-56b6-a7d2-11000cf991d1","slug":"hazelcrest-i-ii-condominium-association-appellant-v-7520-hazel-crest-llc-112810","caseName":"Hazelcrest I & II Condominium Association, Appellant, v. 7520 Hazel Crest LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112810","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hazelcrest I & II Condominium Association obtained a default judgment against 7520 Hazel Crest LLC for unpaid assessments. The circuit court subsequently granted 7520 Hazel Crest LLC's motion to set aside the default judgment. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed, holding that 7520 Hazel Crest LLC failed to prove good cause for setting aside the default judgment under Rule 74.05(d) because merely alleging a registered agent failed to provide notice, without further explanation, is insufficient to show a good faith mistake rather than recklessness.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221139","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hazelcrest-i-ii-condominium-association-appellant-v-7520-hazel-crest-llc-112810","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":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:wd86907:2025-05-20","opinionId":"5bc30338-f65f-51e3-a50a-8a1df6b6cec8","slug":"thomas-g-blaylock-et-al-v-steven-r-blaylock-et-al-d86907","caseName":"Thomas G. Blaylock, et al.\nvs. \nSteven R. Blaylock, et al.","caseNumber":"WD86907","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Thomas and Martha Blaylock appealed the circuit court's judgment partitioning inherited real property in kind, arguing it resulted in great prejudice. Defendants cross-appealed, challenging the award of attorney fees to Plaintiffs' counsel, the distribution of partnership crop revenue, and the finding that Thomas made no draws from the partnership account. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment on all points, finding no error in the partition in kind, no abuse of discretion in the attorney fee award, and no prejudicial error in the crop revenue distribution or the finding regarding Thomas's draws.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220714","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-g-blaylock-et-al-v-steven-r-blaylock-et-al-d86907","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:ed113029:2025-05-20","opinionId":"f559d952-2d6e-5912-ad95-8e9f6b2e8ad7","slug":"3018-pershall-llc-appellant-v-outfront-media-llc-et-al-respondents-113029","caseName":"3018 Pershall, LLC, Appellant, v. Outfront Media, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113029","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC, which acquired a commercial property via a tax sale, sued Respondents Landmark and Outfront Media for declaratory judgment and to quiet title, asserting that their easement and billboard interest did not survive the tax sale. The trial court found for Respondents, holding their interests were valid and survived the sale. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Landmark held a valid easement not void for public policy and that Appellant failed to rebut evidence of proper notice to Respondents.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220757","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/3018-pershall-llc-appellant-v-outfront-media-llc-et-al-respondents-113029","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":6,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112972:2025-05-20","opinionId":"3324f5c0-e871-5be6-9e7f-64d2fa3f869d","slug":"wmac-2013-llc-appellant-v-the-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-respon-112972","caseName":"WMAC 2013, LLC, Appellant, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112972","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"WMAC 2013, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment that quieted title to real property in its favor but subject to a sewer lien for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD). While the appeal was pending, MSD filed a motion to dismiss, stating the lien had been fully satisfied. The appellate court granted the motion, dismissing the appeal as moot because the satisfaction of the lien extinguished the controversy and made it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief. The court also found that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220756","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/wmac-2013-llc-appellant-v-the-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-respon-112972","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":"moappsd:sd38515:2025-05-13","opinionId":"aaf3f0c0-52d6-5768-a79b-1dd66f1045d6","slug":"colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-plaintiffs-appellants-v-granite-sprin-d38515","caseName":"COLLEEN EIKMEIER and WILLIAM S. LOVE, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nGRANITE SPRINGS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38515","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love purchased a lot in a subdivision with a covenant prohibiting solar panels. After a new statute (Section 442.404.3) was enacted, they sought to install solar panels, but the homeowners' association rejected their request based on the pre-existing covenant. Plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment, arguing the statute allowed them to install the panels. The circuit court ruled that the statute applied prospectively only, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the circuit court's declaration of law.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-eikmeier-and-william-s-love-plaintiffs-appellants-v-granite-sprin-d38515","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":"moappsd:sd37656:2025-04-25","opinionId":"25264c6f-3e35-51b2-a01c-08e172c71f36","slug":"christine-bell-kaplan-appellantcross-respondent-v-mary-c-schwarze-et-al-r-d37656","caseName":"CHRISTINE BELL-KAPLAN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent\nv.\nMARY C. SCHWARZE, et al, Respondents/Cross-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37656","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christine Bell-Kaplan appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Schwarzes in a quiet title and declaratory judgment action concerning two tracts of land. Kaplan alleged Henrietta Schwarze lacked the mental capacity to execute deeds and powers of attorney that ultimately conveyed the property to Henrietta's nieces and nephews, revoking prior beneficiary deeds to Kaplan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points of Kaplan's appeal, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof or properly preserve certain arguments. However, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision to set aside costs against Kaplan, holding that the Schwarzes, as the prevailing party, were entitled to recover costs.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","estate-probate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-bell-kaplan-appellantcross-respondent-v-mary-c-schwarze-et-al-r-d37656","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:sd38462:2025-04-03","opinionId":"bca28df5-32d2-5b0f-8782-59e32293fc90","slug":"paul-e-jokerst-jr-and-veronica-sue-jokerst-plaintiffs-respondents-v-ronal-d38462","caseName":"PAUL E. JOKERST, JR. and VERONICA SUE JOKERST, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nRONALD HUCKABY and DIANE M. HUCKABY, Defendants-Appellants and\nF & C BANK, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38462","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Paul and Veronica Jokerst sued Ronald and Diane Huckaby over property boundaries and a sewer lateral line. The Jokersts sought a prescriptive easement over a portion of the Huckabys' lot (Tract 1) for their sewer line and its maintenance. The trial court granted the Jokersts a prescriptive easement over Tract 1 and enjoined the Huckabys from interfering with its use. The Huckabys appealed, contending the trial court's finding of visible use for the easement was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the visible maintenance of the surface above the underground lateral line, combined with other evidence, sufficiently established visible use.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-e-jokerst-jr-and-veronica-sue-jokerst-plaintiffs-respondents-v-ronal-d38462","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38532:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c5ee6ccb-03ae-5b61-be0e-0ab86237012b","slug":"robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","caseName":"ROBERT AND SUSAN FERGUSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nCITY OF SUNRISE BEACH, MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38532","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert and Susan Ferguson, along with other property owners, sued the City of Sunrise Beach for nuisance and negligence, alleging property damage from improperly treated wastewater discharged from the City's facility. The trial court denied the City's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found for the property owners. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that inverse condemnation is the exclusive remedy for property damage claims against a public entity with eminent domain authority, even when framed as tort claims. The court allowed the property owners to amend their petition to assert inverse condemnation claims.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","negligence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","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:sc100724:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c812d4c8-91a0-50d0-af79-7056f7a3fd86","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100724","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters filed a replevin claim against Jacob Dawson to recover vehicles he possessed after his father's death. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession and later entered a default judgment for damages, cancelling Dawson's jury trial due to his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and a pattern of obstructive behavior. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Dawson's constitutional claims regarding the right to a jury trial were unpreserved and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning him.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-100724","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:ed112714:2025-03-18","opinionId":"29b8dbb9-2162-5a50-bcf0-b757b116b835","slug":"arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","caseName":"Arch Energy, L.C., Appellant, v. City of Brentwood, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112714","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arch Energy, L.C. challenged an amendment to the City of Brentwood's zoning ordinance that removed gas stations as a conditional use in a specific district. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed the summary judgment as to Count I, holding that Arch Energy was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for its facial challenge to the ordinance and that the City failed to provide the statutorily mandated public notice for the amendment. The court also dismissed other points challenging the denial of Arch Energy's summary judgment motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218539","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arch-energy-lc-appellant-v-city-of-brentwood-respondent-112714","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"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:ed112717:2025-03-11","opinionId":"3b8404e3-004e-5251-a522-cff6f58550be","slug":"david-p-oetting-appellant-v-city-of-ladue-et-al-respondents-112717","caseName":"David P. Oetting, Appellant, v. City of Ladue, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112717","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Oetting appealed the issuance of building permits by the City of Ladue to neighboring property owners, alleging the lot failed to meet frontage requirements. Ladue's Zoning Board of Adjustment dismissed Oetting's appeal as untimely, a decision subsequently affirmed by the circuit court. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Oetting failed to file a timely appeal to the Board because he had notice of the permit's issuance well in advance of his appeal.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-p-oetting-appellant-v-city-of-ladue-et-al-respondents-112717","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":"moappd:ed112620:2025-03-11","opinionId":"5b2f2bf3-b0f6-5e80-bf73-610128c12ff5","slug":"harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","caseName":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, Respondent, v. City of Cottleville, MO, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112620","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Harmony Pointe, LLC, sought to construct a mixed-use project, receiving final plan and construction plan approval from the City of Cottleville. The City later issued a stop work order, claiming construction had not begun within one year, causing the final plan to expire under municipal code section 405.390(C). The City's Board of Adjustment upheld the order, but the trial court reversed, finding construction had begun. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the work performed by Harmony Pointe constituted \"construction\" under the municipal code, thus the final plan had not expired.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218552","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harmony-pointe-llc-respondent-v-city-of-cottleville-mo-et-al-appellants-112620","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:ed112891:2025-03-04","opinionId":"f9fe7f75-d185-5ed6-9429-a3f17659f2e5","slug":"arnold-shute-et-al-appellants-v-board-of-zoning-adjustments-of-franklin-c-112891","caseName":"Arnold Shute, et al., Appellants, vs. Board of Zoning Adjustments of Franklin County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112891","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arnold Shute and Nancy Durnin appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for judicial review of a Franklin County Board of Zoning Adjustment decision, which granted Vertical Bridge a variance for a wireless communications tower. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Shute's first two points on appeal were noncompliant with Rule 84.04, and his remaining points regarding the merits of the variance were not preserved because they were not raised before the Board. The court emphasized the duty of complainants to preserve claims in zoning litigation.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218059","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arnold-shute-et-al-appellants-v-board-of-zoning-adjustments-of-franklin-c-112891","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112652:2025-02-11","opinionId":"edee8ec5-1f77-59e8-a1f8-e28d24a67bc1","slug":"william-hoelting-et-al-respondents-v-hadley-grove-subdivision-homeowners-112652","caseName":"William Hoelting, et al., Respondents, vs. Hadley Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112652","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"William Hoelting and others sued Hadley Grove Subdivision Homeowners Association for trespass after a stormwater drainage pipe was installed on their property without permission, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the Hoeltings on their claim for injunctive relief, certifying it as final under Rule 74.01(b) while reserving damages and cross-claims for trial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the partial summary judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because the claims for injunctive relief and damages arose from the same underlying trespass and did not constitute a distinct judicial unit.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-hoelting-et-al-respondents-v-hadley-grove-subdivision-homeowners-112652","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":"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":"moappsd:sd38539:2025-01-30","opinionId":"271b206e-7d85-5503-bd58-4cac0bd43730","slug":"rick-parker-assessor-reynolds-county-missouri-appellant-v-the-doe-run-res-d38539","caseName":"RICK PARKER, Assessor Reynolds County, Missouri, Appellant\nvs.\nTHE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38539","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rick Parker, Assessor for Reynolds County, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the State Tax Commission's (STC) decision regarding the property tax assessment of The Doe Run Resources Corporation's leasehold interest in federal land. The Assessor contended the STC misapplied Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n by using the \"bonus value\" method instead of the Assessor's \"income-based royalty approach.\" The appellate court affirmed, holding that Frontier Airlines controls, requiring the \"bonus value\" method for leasehold interests in tax-exempt property, and the Assessor's proposed method improperly valued the tax-exempt real estate itself.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rick-parker-assessor-reynolds-county-missouri-appellant-v-the-doe-run-res-d38539","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":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86760:2025-01-21","opinionId":"3872c5de-0de4-5936-9ffd-01c9f16f8250","slug":"teri-a-deffenbaugh-and-kelly-r-forck-v-david-kelly-burre-trustee-of-the-d-d86760","caseName":"Teri A. Deffenbaugh and Kelly R. Forck\nvs.\nDavid Kelly Burre, Trustee of the David Kelly Burre Revocable Trust","caseNumber":"WD86760","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Teri Deffenbaugh and Kelly Forck sued David Kelly Burre, Trustee, for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract. The trial court denied specific performance, finding the property description indefinite and that Deffenbaugh failed to satisfy a condition precedent regarding access rights. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Deffenbaugh did not perform his contractual obligation to obtain necessary access and could not unilaterally waive this condition. The court also granted Burre's request for appellate attorney's fees and remanded for their calculation.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/teri-a-deffenbaugh-and-kelly-r-forck-v-david-kelly-burre-trustee-of-the-d-d86760","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":"moappsd:sd38278:2024-12-31","opinionId":"5822f50e-fe30-5721-a463-5ccffd404e1e","slug":"mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","caseName":"MARK BECKMANN, CHERYL BECKMANN, WILLIAM ANGELL, SHERRY ANGELL, MARK EDGECOMB, MIKE EDGECOMB, GARY GARNER, KATHY GARDNER, TOM RUTLEDGE, TARA RUTLEDGE, JERRY MAIER, BRENDA MAIER, MARK HAUPT, PAMELA HAUPT, JEFFREY ALAN PORTER, and JODY PORTER, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Appellants\nv.\nJOY PHILLIPS and DANIEL JOSEPH GARDNER, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38278","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, property owners in an unrecorded development, sought to enjoin Respondents, other property owners, from constructing a community boat dock and using their property for parking, arguing Cherry Lane was a private road and deed restrictions prohibited such use. The trial court denied Appellants' claims and granted Respondents' counterclaim, declaring Cherry Lane a public road. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Respondents had standing to assert common law dedication, the deed restrictions did not clearly prohibit the intended parking use, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing late-disclosed witnesses to testify in the bench trial.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-beckmann-cheryl-beckmann-william-angell-sherry-angell-mark-edgecomb-d38278","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":"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:ed111927:2024-12-24","opinionId":"bab1b882-3582-5120-ab12-7d72057b275c","slug":"aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","caseName":"Aylicia D. Mickow, Appellant, vs. Cody F. Mickow, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111927","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Aylicia Mickow (Wife) appealed the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Cody Mickow (Husband), challenging the joint legal and physical custody order for their two minor children and the valuation of two marital properties. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court adequately addressed all relevant best-interest-of-the-child factors and that the custody order was not against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the court found the property valuations were supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aylicia-d-mickow-appellant-v-cody-f-mickow-respondent-111927","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"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":"moappd:ed112340:2024-12-24","opinionId":"79529cd8-cd5d-592f-8f85-6d62b33d36af","slug":"physicians-choice-wellness-development-llc-appellant-v-mark-r-devore-resp-112340","caseName":"Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Mark R. Devore, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112340","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its petition for damages against Mark Devore, the St. Louis County Collector of Revenue, for allegedly miscalculating tax sale redemption costs. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the tort claims were barred by official immunity and the public duty doctrine because the calculation of redemption costs was a discretionary act. The court also found the promissory estoppel claim failed as it sought monetary damages, and the dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion given multiple opportunities to amend.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","contracts","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215956","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/physicians-choice-wellness-development-llc-appellant-v-mark-r-devore-resp-112340","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: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":"moappwd:wd87090:2024-12-17","opinionId":"9bd7618b-a18b-5fdf-85da-4f98a2ca814c","slug":"in-re-mid-states-materials-llc-permit-no-1236-a2-the-osage-nation-randal-d87090","caseName":"In Re Mid-States Materials, LLC Permit NO. 1236-A2; The Osage Nation; Randal S. Dobyns and Leslie R. Dobyns, Individually and as Trustees of the Dobyns Family Trust Dated October 15, 2018\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Natural Resources & Missouri Mining Commission, Mid-States Materials, LLC","caseNumber":"WD87090","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Randal and Leslie Dobyns and the Osage Nation appealed the Missouri Mining Commission's decision to grant Mid-States Materials a permit to mine limestone. Appellants argued that Mid-States's application failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements by not identifying all parties with an interest in the land. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that the application was incomplete because it failed to disclose a co-landlord and co-owner of mineral rights as identified in the lease agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","standard-of-review","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215519","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-mid-states-materials-llc-permit-no-1236-a2-the-osage-nation-randal-d87090","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":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-215514","opinionId":"af71247d-2f10-551e-aafc-3054b97d7b32","slug":"veeral-bhoot-do-et-al-v-701-709-ne-woods-chapel-road-llc-et-al-d86805","caseName":"Veeral Bhoot, D.O., Et al.\nvs.\n701-709 NE Woods Chapel Road, LLC, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86805","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, including Veeral Bhoot, appealed the denial of specific performance and the limited damages awarded for breach of contracts to sell real estate and medical equipment. Cross-Appellants challenged the trial court's award of attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Appellants' \"unclean hands\" precluded specific performance and that the challenge to the jury's damages verdict was unpreserved. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the attorney fee award.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/veeral-bhoot-do-et-al-v-701-709-ne-woods-chapel-road-llc-et-al-d86805","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":"moappsd:sd38370:2024-12-11","opinionId":"cedc3bf2-a3b0-59b9-96a3-b88fb8300322","slug":"debra-wax-plaintiff-appellant-v-sarah-vickers-defendant-respondent-d38370","caseName":"DEBRA WAX, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nSARAH VICKERS, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38370","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Debra Wax filed an ejectment petition against Sarah Vickers, her daughter, seeking possession of a property. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Vickers. On appeal, Wax argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and the trial court misapplied the law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Wax failed to prove a superior right to possession and did not properly preserve her 'against the weight of the evidence' claim by following the mandatory analytical sequence.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debra-wax-plaintiff-appellant-v-sarah-vickers-defendant-respondent-d38370","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":"mo:sc100574:2024-12-10","opinionId":"ed4f33f0-4a0a-5216-a24f-c9572f1b45d4","slug":"millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","caseName":"Millstone Property Owners Association, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, Fogarty Farms, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100574","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Millstone Property Owners Association sued Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis for breach of subdivision restrictions, including failure to pay assessments and maintain lots. Nithyananda counterclaimed, arguing that developer rights were not properly transferred to Fogarty Farms (who created the association) and that the restrictions were abandoned. Nithyananda also challenged the transfer of a common lake lot. The circuit court found developer rights were transferred, restrictions were not abandoned, Nithyananda must comply, and the lake lot remained common ground, awarding attorney fees to the association. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment in all respects.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-100574","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:ed112660:2024-11-19","opinionId":"8c7f0d6f-3da8-5b2a-98e6-e3a787f99ace","slug":"magellanic-seven-llc-respondent-v-wentzville-church-of-god-appellant-112660","caseName":"Magellanic Seven, LLC, Respondent, vs. Wentzville Church of God, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112660","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Magellanic Seven, LLC, obtained a judgment quieting title to real property against Wentzville Church of God. After the original judgment was affirmed on appeal, Magellanic filed a nunc pro tunc motion to correct a typographical error in the property's legal description, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the nunc pro tunc order, holding that such an order is an appealable \"special order after final judgment\" and that the trial court properly corrected a clerical error supported by the record.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214643","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/magellanic-seven-llc-respondent-v-wentzville-church-of-god-appellant-112660","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:parent-214206","opinionId":"d796034a-c0e3-5504-8285-f085a71fc710","slug":"west-39th-street-llc-v-lina-llc-d86445","caseName":"West 39th Street, LLC\nvs.\nLina, LLC","caseNumber":"WD86445","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-11-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lina, LLC, a tenant operating a pizza restaurant, appealed a declaratory judgment that a \"Lease Addendum\" granting it perpetual renewal options was void and unenforceable. The trial court had found the addendum void because it provided for perpetual renewal options and violated the rule against restraints on alienation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that perpetual lease renewals are enforceable in Missouri when clearly expressed, and that the rule against restraints on alienation does not apply to enforceable perpetual leases.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214206","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/west-39th-street-llc-v-lina-llc-d86445","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":"moappsd:sd38280:2024-10-30","opinionId":"d5850096-a3f0-5df8-a428-94fcf50cadfa","slug":"thomas-j-brown-iii-trustee-of-thomas-j-brown-iii-revocable-trust-uad-may-d38280","caseName":"THOMAS J. BROWN, III, Trustee of Thomas J. Brown, III, Revocable Trust U/A/D May 13, 2021, Respondent\nvs.\nDARREN and DAPHNE JERNIGAN, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38280","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Darren and Daphne Jernigan (Buyers) appealed a circuit court's judgment of specific performance, which ordered them to purchase a property from Thomas J. Brown, III, Trustee (Seller), following their breach of a real estate purchase agreement. The Buyers argued the circuit court misapplied the law by awarding specific performance when an adequate remedy at law (liquidated damages) existed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the award of specific performance, and remanded the case for the circuit court to determine and award the Seller's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred on appeal.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-j-brown-iii-trustee-of-thomas-j-brown-iii-revocable-trust-uad-may-d38280","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:ed112331:2024-10-29","opinionId":"91d70153-3da7-5c1c-86a7-97873a37fd28","slug":"double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","caseName":"Double AA Market, LLC, Appellant, v. Mona Parsley, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Double AA Market, LLC, appealed the St. Louis City Board of Adjustment's denial of a conditional use permit for its convenience store. Appellant argued the Board's findings were insufficient, it acted outside its authority, its decision lacked substantial evidence, it constituted an unconstitutional taking, and Appellant was entitled to attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings sufficient, its denial supported by competent evidence, the takings claim unpreserved and meritless, and no basis for attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/double-aa-market-llc-appellant-v-mona-parsley-et-al-respondents-112331","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:wd86613:2024-10-15","opinionId":"755bfb46-adf3-51f6-8682-8dcaa6997e9d","slug":"grain-belt-express-llc-v-chariton-county-missouri-d86613","caseName":"Grain Belt Express, L.L.C.\nvs.\nChariton County, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86613","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Grain Belt Express, L.L.C., an electrical corporation, sought a declaratory judgment against Chariton County after the County refused to grant assent for the construction of overhead transmission lines on public roads, despite MPSC approval. The circuit court ruled that Section 49.650.4 prohibited the County from regulating Grain Belt's construction. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that Section 49.650.4 does not implicitly repeal Section 229.100. The County must grant assent for the *manner* of construction to ensure road safety, but cannot withhold assent to prevent the MPSC-approved project.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/grain-belt-express-llc-v-chariton-county-missouri-d86613","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:sd38172:2024-09-19","opinionId":"a62bec08-5894-50ca-8a81-30014f102ad9","slug":"martin-leigh-pc-respondent-v-betty-williamson-et-al-and-dan-horgan-et-al-d38172","caseName":"MARTIN LEIGH, PC, Respondent\nv.\nBETTY WILLIAMSON, ET AL., and DAN HORGAN, ET AL., Respondents \nand LOANCARE, LLC., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38172","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"LoanCare, LLC appealed from a trial court's summary judgment regarding a contested foreclosure sale, where LoanCare's junior lien was extinguished. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, dismissed the appeal. The court found that LoanCare failed to comply with Rule 84.04(c) by not properly reciting the uncontroverted material facts from the summary judgment record, which materially impeded the court's review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-leigh-pc-respondent-v-betty-williamson-et-al-and-dan-horgan-et-al-d38172","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":16,"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":"moappsd:sd38170:2024-09-03","opinionId":"64e17f46-119e-588c-9d8c-8e782e71c3dc","slug":"dorman-e-sturgell-trustee-of-the-sturgell-family-trust-dated-november-10-d38170","caseName":"DORMAN E. STURGELL, Trustee of the Sturgell Family Trust dated November 10, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nGARY YOUNGBLOOD, in his capacity as Presiding Commissioner of Barry County, WAYNE HENDRIX, in his capacity as Associate Commissioner of Barry County, Gary Schad, in his capacity as Associate Commissioner of Barry County, Defendants-Respondents, \nand\nMOUNTAIN SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT, a special road district of Barry County, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38170","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dorman E. Sturgell, Trustee of the Sturgell Family Trust, appealed a judgment in favor of Barry County officials and the Mountain Special Road District regarding whether Hatcher Mountain Road is a private or public road. The trial court had entered judgment for the defendants on all counts. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, specifically regarding the statement of facts and points relied on.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dorman-e-sturgell-trustee-of-the-sturgell-family-trust-dated-november-10-d38170","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:ed112285:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c641001c-4066-5926-a28c-f1d34a564332","slug":"claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","caseName":"Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Patricia Thibeault, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112285","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Claymont Development, LLC, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the City of Wildwood regarding development moratoria and to compel the issuance of development permits for a residential subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that Claymont's claims were moot because the challenged moratoria had expired or been repealed, and the development plan had changed without proper resubmission, making it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210478","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/claymont-development-llc-appellant-v-patricia-thibeault-et-al-respondents-112285","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":"moappd:ed111983:2024-08-20","opinionId":"c820cdb1-6bcc-516b-a7d2-d21aa65b4a1e","slug":"clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","caseName":"Clifton Merritt and Tammy Merritt, Appellants, vs. Kenneth Wilson and Karen Wilson, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Clifton and Tammy Merritt sued Kenneth and Karen Wilson over an appurtenant easement and alleged oral and written agreements to terminate it. The Merritts claimed an oral agreement was reached in September 2020 and a written agreement via email in February 2021. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Wilsons, finding no contract existed and the statute of frauds barred the oral agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no meeting of the minds occurred for either the oral or written agreement, and the statute of frauds applied to the purported oral contract.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clifton-merritt-and-tammy-merritt-appellants-v-kenneth-wilson-and-karen-w-111983","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":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":"moappsd:sd37679:2024-08-02","opinionId":"9e5e5eea-c550-5860-b48e-530576f67a68","slug":"roebuck-family-llc-respondent-v-plymouth-management-llc-appellant-and-reg-d37679","caseName":"ROEBUCK FAMILY, LLC, Respondent,\nv.\nPLYMOUTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant,\nand\nREGIONS BANK, INC., and MTW TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37679","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Roebuck Family, LLC, sued Plymouth Management, LLC, and Regions Bank, Inc., seeking to reform a deed of trust to include an omitted tract of land, alleging mutual mistake. The trial court found a mutual mistake and reformed the deed and a subsequent trustee's deed. On appeal, the Southern District reversed, holding that there was a lack of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding of mutual mistake, particularly regarding Plymouth's intent.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roebuck-family-llc-respondent-v-plymouth-management-llc-appellant-and-reg-d37679","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":"moappd:ed111979:2024-07-23","opinionId":"0d9ff248-959b-5de3-bf85-e1197e79a6f9","slug":"danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","caseName":"Danny L. Dannenhauer, and the Danny L. Dannenhauer Family Trust, By and Through Brenda D. Gunlock, Trustee, Appellants, vs. Philip P. Briscoe, Personal Representative of Estate of John W. Briscoe, Briscoe and Brannon, and Wasinger Parham, L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111979","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danny L. Dannenhauer and the Dannenhauer Family Trust sued attorney John Briscoe for legal malpractice related to a real estate transaction and Wasinger Parham for failing to advise them of the potential malpractice claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Briscoe, finding the statute of limitations had expired, and later granted JNOV for Wasinger Parham. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment against Briscoe, holding that the legal malpractice claim accrued later than the trial court determined, making the suit timely. As a result, the court affirmed the JNOV for Wasinger Parham and remanded the case for adjudication of the claims against Briscoe.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","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":"moappwd:wd86781:2024-07-23","opinionId":"e092ee56-9d8e-52e6-81df-90a14cb277e0","slug":"western-blue-print-co-llc-v-myrna-roberts-et-al-d86781","caseName":"Western Blue Print Co., LLC\nvs.\nMyrna Roberts, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD86781","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Myrna and Mel Roberts appealed the denial of their motion to declare a judgment against them satisfied and released. The Robertses argued the judgment was conclusively presumed paid under section 516.350.1 RSMo, as no motion to revive was filed and no payments were duly entered on the record within ten years. The appellate court reversed, holding that payments on a judgment must be entered on the record of the judgment court to restart the ten-year period, and the payments made in this case were not properly recorded.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209877","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/western-blue-print-co-llc-v-myrna-roberts-et-al-d86781","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":"moappd:ed112215:2024-07-16","opinionId":"6b1a8664-bb93-540d-8ec1-a547db807d93","slug":"1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","caseName":"1123 Washington Avenue Retail Condo, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112215","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Property owners within the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, which barred their claim seeking refunds for special assessments. The property owners argued they were not collaterally estopped from challenging the assessments as unlawful taxes under the Refund Statute. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the property owners' claim was time-barred by the more specific statute of limitations in the CID Act, rather than the general Refund Statute.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/1123-washington-avenue-retail-condo-llc-et-al-appellants-v-the-downtown-s-112215","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":"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:ed111696:2024-07-02","opinionId":"87258293-353e-5123-b4bd-9dd8013ab890","slug":"ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","caseName":"Ethel Barry Masters, Respondent, vs. Jacob Dawson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ethel Barry Masters brought a replevin action against Jacob Dawson for five vehicles acquired during her relationship with Dawson's deceased father. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Masters on possession of the vehicles and later entered a final judgment awarding damages after canceling Dawson's jury trial for nonappearance at a pretrial conference. The appellate court affirmed the partial summary judgment, finding the vehicles passed to Masters outside of probate, but reversed the final judgment as to damages, holding that canceling a jury trial as a sanction for nonappearance at a pretrial conference violated Dawson's constitutional right to a jury trial. The case was remanded for a jury trial on damages.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209435","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ethel-barry-masters-respondent-v-jacob-dawson-appellant-111696","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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":"moappsd:sd38153:2024-06-26","opinionId":"6991d529-348e-5754-b397-ca48eb7491c1","slug":"gerald-titus-and-anna-titus-respondents-v-scott-dunavant-and-lisa-dunavan-d38153","caseName":"Gerald Titus and Anna Titus, Respondents\nvs.\nScott Dunavant and Lisa Dunavant, as husband and wife, if living, their unknown heirs, devisees, grantees, assignees, alienees, legatees, personal representatives, and all other persons, corporations, or successors claiming by, through, or under them, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD38153","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Scott and Lisa Dunavant appealed a judgment awarding title by adverse possession to Gerald and Anna Titus. The Dunavants argued the trial court misapplied the law because the Tituses did not actually possess or use the disputed property. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Dunavants failed to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 by challenging only the evidence and findings of fact, rather than raising a question of law, and by failing to cite or apply the applicable standard of review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gerald-titus-and-anna-titus-respondents-v-scott-dunavant-and-lisa-dunavan-d38153","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:sd37755:2024-06-26","opinionId":"f8e2519a-39b1-557f-b313-d1f259504217","slug":"dick-porton-amy-porton-and-nathan-atchison-respondents-v-keith-box-and-sa-d37755","caseName":"DICK PORTON, AMY PORTON, and NATHAN ATCHISON, Respondents\nv.\nKEITH BOX and SARAH BOX, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37755","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dick Porton, Amy Porton, and Nathan Atchison (Subdivision Owners) sued Keith and Sarah Box (Boxes) to establish a public road across the Boxes' property, which had been used by the public for nearly 30 years to access the Blue Ridge Estates Subdivision. The trial court found the road to be a public road by common-law dedication and, alternatively, by public prescriptive easement. The Boxes appealed, arguing errors in the common-law dedication finding, the burden-shifting for the prescriptive easement, and the inconsistency of the two theories. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in the Boxes' argument regarding the prescriptive easement and declining to address the other points.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dick-porton-amy-porton-and-nathan-atchison-respondents-v-keith-box-and-sa-d37755","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":"moappsd:sd37377:2024-06-04","opinionId":"3a4ab9ba-a2ac-562e-ac8c-249465cbf99f","slug":"david-romano-et-al-respondents-v-mike-r-carla-adams-et-al-appellants-d37377","caseName":"DAVID ROMANO, et al., Respondents\nv.\nMIKE R. & CARLA ADAMS, et al., Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37377","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Landowners Mike R. & Carla Adams appealed a circuit court judgment declaring Canyon Road and an adjacent Access Area public by common law dedication and prescriptive easement, after they erected a gate blocking public access. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the common law dedication and prescriptive easement for both the road and the access area. The court also found the easement descriptions sufficiently definite and upheld the trial court's amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence regarding a specific gravel bar. The judgment ensures continued public access to the Finley River via Canyon Road.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-romano-et-al-respondents-v-mike-r-carla-adams-et-al-appellants-d37377","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":"moappsd:sd38186:2024-06-04","opinionId":"28c979e4-1760-5001-adf6-375ebfa019f0","slug":"ronald-parker-a-single-person-and-lynn-parker-a-single-person-and-carl-an-d38186","caseName":"RONALD PARKER, a Single Person, and LYNN PARKER, a Single Person, and CARL and DEBBIE HORTON, Husband and Wife, and DOG PAW TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nCASTLE VIEW COUNTY CLUB, INC., a Missouri Not for Profit Corporation, in Good Standing, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38186","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Property Owners, who own interests in Castle View RV Resort, sued Castle View Country Club, Inc., the property manager, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding various rights and an accounting. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Castle View on both counts. On appeal, the Southern District vacated the summary judgment as to Count 1, holding that Castle View's statement of uncontroverted material facts improperly relied on Property Owners' objections to discovery requests, which do not constitute facts or admissions, thus failing to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Count 1.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ronald-parker-a-single-person-and-lynn-parker-a-single-person-and-carl-an-d38186","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"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:ed111690:2024-05-14","opinionId":"6e80c4fb-566c-5202-bcae-f8f20f5fcea1","slug":"fabius-village-mobile-home-park-llc-respondent-v-wyatt-land-holdings-llc-111690","caseName":"Fabius Village Mobile Home Park, L.L.C., Respondent, v. Wyatt Land Holdings, L.L.C., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111690","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Fabius Village Mobile Home Park (FVMH) sold property with seller financing, and Wyatt Land Holdings (Wyatt Land) provided partial financing, believing it held a first-priority lien. After a default and foreclosure, FVMH sued to quiet title and establish its vendor purchase money lien's priority. The circuit court ruled in favor of FVMH, declaring its lien had first priority and reforming a promissory note and deed of trust. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in the lien priority determination or the reformation.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/fabius-village-mobile-home-park-llc-respondent-v-wyatt-land-holdings-llc-111690","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":"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":"mo:sc100238:2024-04-30","opinionId":"a3b667bf-9755-5c22-97be-1a04f92a7d57","slug":"sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","caseName":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza, Appellants, vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100238","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza (Buyers) purchased land with a barn, which was later found to violate city zoning ordinances. Buyers sued Alliant National Title Insurance Co. (Alliant) for breach of a title insurance policy after Alliant refused to defend them in a lawsuit brought by the City of New Melle. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Alliant, concluding the policy provided no coverage. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy unambiguously required a recorded notice in the public records for coverage under Covered Risk 5, and that Exclusion 1(a) precluded coverage under Covered Risks 2 and 3 for ordinance violations.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207702","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"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:ed111925:2024-04-23","opinionId":"e1c350bc-74c0-5b53-abfa-ba2d5775ae0d","slug":"in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","caseName":"In the Estate of Michall Duncan, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED111925","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants challenged a probate court's determination that Jennifer Duncan Criswell was the heir of her biological father, Michall Duncan, arguing that her subsequent adoption by her stepfather removed her from Decedent's bloodline. The Appellants also contended Criswell's petition for heirship was time-barred and that they had acquired title through adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that heirship is determined at the date of death and is not retroactively affected by a later adoption. The court further found that the petition was not time-barred and that adverse possession claims were outside the scope of an heirship determination.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207504","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","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":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111508:2024-04-16","opinionId":"ed6e65bb-6197-5e38-adef-eb1db2f904ca","slug":"keith-w-lay-et-ux-respondents-v-sallie-cunningham-et-al-appellants-111508","caseName":"Keith W. Lay, et ux., Respondents, vs. Sallie Cunningham, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111508","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Keith and Wanda Lay sued Curt and Sallie Cunningham, successor trustees of a family trust, seeking a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress across the Cunningham Property. The circuit court granted the Lays a thirty-foot-wide prescriptive easement and injunctive relief. On appeal, the Cunninghams challenged the findings of adverse use, the width of the easement, and the injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the judgment establishing the prescriptive easement but modified it by deleting the unnecessary injunctive relief.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207300","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/keith-w-lay-et-ux-respondents-v-sallie-cunningham-et-al-appellants-111508","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:ed111764:2024-04-16","opinionId":"76b92cbb-3ed2-516c-9d77-49aaee651227","slug":"angela-m-karstens-respondent-v-kenneth-l-evans-appellant-111764","caseName":"Angela M. Karstens, Respondent, vs. Kenneth L. Evans, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111764","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Angela Karstens filed a partition action against Kenneth Evans for the sale of their jointly owned home. The trial court awarded Karstens ordinary and substantial attorney's fees, to be paid entirely by Evans, and allocated the sale proceeds. Evans appealed the attorney's fees award. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court erred by combining the ordinary and substantial attorney's fees without specifying amounts, and by awarding substantial attorney's fees because Evans' conduct did not meet the threshold for such an award.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207301","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-m-karstens-respondent-v-kenneth-l-evans-appellant-111764","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:sd37950:2024-04-02","opinionId":"ec26f97f-a1a7-5c42-bea9-c24cb6f91512","slug":"douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","caseName":"DOUGLAS NIEMUTH, and CAROL NIEMUTH, Respondents/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nDONALD GASTON, and ROUNDCOUNT RANCH, LLC, Appellants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37950","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donald Gaston and Roundcount Ranch, LLC appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Douglas and Carol Niemuth regarding a right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) in a real estate contract. The Niemuths sought to purchase a portion of a 190-acre tract, while Gaston had a bona fide offer for the entire tract. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ROFR required the Niemuths to match the terms of the bona fide offer, including the purchase of the entire tract. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Gaston and Roundcount and award Gaston attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-niemuth-and-carol-niemuth-respondentscross-appellants-v-donald-ga-d37950","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":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86182:2024-04-02","opinionId":"9ae4b405-973f-5870-b7a1-ec41ce1adab4","slug":"state-of-missouri-at-the-relation-of-laurie-lewis-et-al-v-board-of-zoning-d86182","caseName":"State of Missouri at the Relation of: Laurie Lewis, Et al.\nvs.\nBoard of Zoning Adjustment, Platte County, Missouri and CKC Holdings, LLC.","caseNumber":"WD86182","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Laurie Lewis and other neighboring property owners appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the Platte County Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) decision to grant CKC Holdings, LLC a Special Use Permit (SUP) for a self-storage facility. Appellants argued the BZA erred because the proposed special use was contrary to law, failing to meet Zoning Order standards, and was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case due to prior denials. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the BZA had discretionary authority to grant the SUP and that the preclusion doctrines did not apply given significant changes in the current application.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206861","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-at-the-relation-of-laurie-lewis-et-al-v-board-of-zoning-d86182","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37926:2024-03-22","opinionId":"21990f58-90a9-5952-a6d7-68557a2d0d4e","slug":"roy-a-hodgkinson-elisabeth-hodgkinson-robert-campbell-stephen-campbell-an-d37926","caseName":"ROY A. HODGKINSON, ELISABETH HODGKINSON, ROBERT CAMPBELL, STEPHEN CAMPBELL and AMY CAMPBELL, and JUDY WOLF, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nand SHIRLEY DEINES, Plaintiff\nv.\nSTEVEN HATTEN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37926","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Steven Hatten appealed a judgment granting Roy Hodgkinson and other respondents a prescriptive easement to use Hodgkinson's Lane on Hatten's property. Hatten argued the trial court misapplied the law by finding Roy's use was adverse, believing it was permissive, and by finding other respondents were entitled to an easement, believing the lane was public. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Roy's everyday use violated conditional permission, making it adverse, and that exclusivity is not required for prescriptive easements, allowing the trial court to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the lane's public status after its decommissioning.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roy-a-hodgkinson-elisabeth-hodgkinson-robert-campbell-stephen-campbell-an-d37926","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:ed110101:2024-03-12","opinionId":"d2b1c097-6a47-5af8-9ef4-9ae35afeae5c","slug":"jwstl-llc-appellant-v-union-pacific-railroad-company-respondent-110101","caseName":"JWSTL, LLC, Appellant, vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110101","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"JWSTL, LLC appealed a judgment entered after a bench trial concerning quiet title to railroad crossings and an injunction against Union Pacific Railroad Company. The appellate court addressed Union Pacific's motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing JWSTL's notice of appeal was untimely. The court determined the June 2019 judgment was final and appealable, and JWSTL's notice of appeal was filed well past the deadline. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jwstl-llc-appellant-v-union-pacific-railroad-company-respondent-110101","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":"moappd:ed111400:2024-03-12","opinionId":"d0d6d65d-2691-5858-90c7-9aa925c50644","slug":"dennis-kallash-and-toni-kallash-respondents-v-nicole-bruner-jones-appella-111400","caseName":"Dennis Kallash and Toni Kallash, Respondents, vs. Nicole Bruner-Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111400","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dennis and Toni Kallash sought a permanent injunction against Nicole Bruner-Jones, alleging she violated subdivision restrictive covenants by installing solar panels without approval. The trial court granted the injunction, ordering the removal of the panels. On appeal, the Eastern District reversed, holding that the Kallashes lacked standing to enforce the covenants because they no longer owned any lots in the subdivision, which, under the Declaration, terminated their role as trustees.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206340","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dennis-kallash-and-toni-kallash-respondents-v-nicole-bruner-jones-appella-111400","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:ed110871:2024-03-05","opinionId":"e321bf1d-5b45-5775-9c4a-2593f226f5da","slug":"millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-110871","caseName":"Millstone Property Owners Association, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam of St. Louis, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Fogerty Farms, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110871","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam, owner of three lots in the Millstone subdivision, appealed a judgment concerning its non-conforming use of a lot, unpaid assessments, and developer rights. Fogarty Farms and the Millstone Property Owners Association (MPOA) cross-appealed regarding the voiding of a lake lot transfer and attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on developer rights, the attorneys' fees award, and the voiding of the lake lot transfer based on promissory estoppel. However, it reversed the injunction concerning lot fourteen, holding that the single-family dwelling restriction was waived for that lot due to prior widespread disregard.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/millstone-property-owners-association-respondentcross-appellant-v-nithyan-110871","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":"moappsd:sd37923:2024-03-05","opinionId":"848989a6-0b41-5805-a908-7c52398f22ef","slug":"taneycomo-lakefront-resort-rv-park-llc-plaintiff-appellant-v-empire-distr-d37923","caseName":"TANEYCOMO LAKEFRONT RESORT & RV PARK, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nEMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37923","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Taneycomo Lakefront Resort & RV Park, LLC, sued Empire District Electric Company to clear title to lakefront real estate that Empire claimed to own in fee simple. The circuit court entered judgment for Empire, declaring it owned fee simple title. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the deed Empire relied upon granted only a flowage easement, not fee-simple title, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206174","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/taneycomo-lakefront-resort-rv-park-llc-plaintiff-appellant-v-empire-distr-d37923","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111805:2024-02-20","opinionId":"17fd9fc2-b22e-5c15-86d0-abd4ad7d7eae","slug":"michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","caseName":"Michael Megown, et al., Appellants, v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111805","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael and Jane Megown appealed the trial court's allocation of settlement funds to their insurer, Auto Club Family Insurance Company, as subrogee, from a settlement with a third-party tortfeasor. The Megowns argued that subrogation of personal injury claims is prohibited, and their settlement included such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court properly allocated the settlement funds, respecting the ban on personal injury subrogation while allowing the property damage subrogation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100219:2024-02-14","opinionId":"172db3ba-b7f6-5651-9558-2416ecec4f33","slug":"crown-diversified-industries-corp-et-al-respondents-v-jake-zimmerman-asse-100219","caseName":"Crown Diversified Industries Corp., et al., Respondents, v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100219","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-02-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"The St. Louis County Assessor appealed the circuit court's judgment, which had reversed the Missouri State Tax Commission's (STC) decision denying commercial property owners' discrimination claims. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and reinstated the STC's decision. The Court held that the actual assessment level for ratio discrimination claims is based on the assessed value that determines the property owner's actual tax liability, including reductions ordered by the Board of Equalization (BOE) or STC, thereby overruling *Zimmerman v. Mid-America Fin. Corp.* The Court also found the STC's findings on sales chasing and regressive assessments were supported by substantial evidence and that the STC did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery requests.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/crown-diversified-industries-corp-et-al-respondents-v-jake-zimmerman-asse-100219","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"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37922:2024-02-14","opinionId":"64f3657a-28d4-5f97-b514-02591aca361f","slug":"michael-a-predovic-marilyn-m-predovic-paul-r-etheridge-elizabeth-a-etheri-d37922","caseName":"Michael A. Predovic, Marilyn M. Predovic, Paul R. Etheridge, Elizabeth A. Etheridge, Timbermill Homeowners Association, Appellants\nvs.\nThe Empire District Electric Co., and Chuck Pennell, Assessor, Taney County, Missouri, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37922","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael and Marilyn Predovic, Paul and Elizabeth Etheridge, and Timbermill Homeowners Association (Appellants) sought to establish title to real estate on Lake Taneycomo, which The Empire District Electric Company (Empire) claimed in fee simple. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Empire, concluding a 1912 deed conveyed fee simple title. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the 1912 deed conveyed only a flowage easement, not fee simple title, because the deed's premises limited the conveyance \"for lake purposes.\"","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-a-predovic-marilyn-m-predovic-paul-r-etheridge-elizabeth-a-etheri-d37922","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:ed110814:2024-01-16","opinionId":"63046cda-5f77-5eea-84d0-3f07f2f8ae10","slug":"helen-sanders-respondent-v-colleen-gould-appellant-110814","caseName":"Helen Sanders, Respondent, vs. Colleen Gould, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110814","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Helen Sanders sued her sister, Colleen Gould, for fraudulent misrepresentation after Gould purchased a house in her own name, despite allegedly promising to co-sign a loan with Sanders and later transfer title. A jury found in favor of Sanders, awarding her damages, and the trial court imposed a constructive trust ordering Gould to sell the house to Sanders. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict on fraudulent misrepresentation, finding sufficient evidence for falsity and reasonable reliance, but reversed the constructive trust judgment, holding it resulted in an impermissible double recovery for Sanders.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/helen-sanders-respondent-v-colleen-gould-appellant-110814","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:parent-203796","opinionId":"5390af45-f9d2-51ef-84dc-aeecb629da31","slug":"mary-and-sherry-davis-kevin-laughlin-david-and-denise-kamm-v-city-of-kear-d85669","caseName":"Mary and Sherry Davis, Kevin Laughlin, David and Denise Kamm\nvs.\nCity of Kearney, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85669","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mark and Sherry Davis, David and Denise Kamm, and Kevin Laughlin filed an inverse condemnation action against the City of Kearney due to increased stormwater flow causing erosion. The trial court granted a directed verdict for Laughlin and jury verdicts for the Davises and Kamms, but did not determine prejudgment interest or the date of taking. On cross-appeals, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, dismissed the appeals for lack of a final judgment. The court held that a judgment reserving the calculation of prejudgment interest and the date of taking is not final and appealable, thus depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203796","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-and-sherry-davis-kevin-laughlin-david-and-denise-kamm-v-city-of-kear-d85669","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":"mo:sc100298:2023-12-19","opinionId":"7b6324c8-ad84-53aa-82c3-30bcf10053a0","slug":"state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","caseName":"State ex rel. Tyler Technologies, Inc., Relator, v. The Honorable David P. Chamberlain, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100298","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyler Technologies, Inc., sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding with negligence claims (Counts IV and VI) in a class-action lawsuit. Property owners alleged Tyler negligently performed contractual obligations to assist Jackson County with real property assessments, resulting in illegal assessments. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Tyler owed no duty of care to the property owners due to the rule of privity, thereby entitling Tyler to dismissal of the claims.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","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:ed111671:2023-12-19","opinionId":"97f1e869-826a-581f-8888-eaaf7be74f41","slug":"stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","caseName":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC, Appellant, v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111671","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"STL Riverview Plaza LLC sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging MSD breached temporary construction easements by occupying property beyond verbally represented time limits. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MSD, finding the alleged oral agreements void under Section 432.070 and barred by the parol evidence rule. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that contracts with municipal corporations must be in writing and that the written easements were completely integrated and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence of oral representations.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203699","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stl-riverview-plaza-llc-appellant-v-metropolitan-st-louis-sewer-district-111671","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":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":"mo:sc100304:2023-12-19","opinionId":"0c30a070-90aa-5509-9511-3ea3212d18f6","slug":"state-ex-rel-jackson-county-missouri-et-al-relators-v-the-honorable-david-100304","caseName":"State ex rel. Jackson County, Missouri, et al., Relators, v. The Honorable David Chamberlain, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100304","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jackson County and its public officials sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by property owners. The property owners alleged unlawful increases to assessed property values due to untimely notice and failure to conduct physical inspections. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of mandamus permanent, holding that the property owners failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit, even if they received late notice of the increased assessments, because administrative appeal avenues were still open.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203715","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-jackson-county-missouri-et-al-relators-v-the-honorable-david-100304","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":"moappsd:sd37819:2023-12-12","opinionId":"52f6f6ac-7e34-5ca8-8d8d-f7396dafabe1","slug":"roger-ash-et-ux-appellants-v-kevin-beal-et-al-respondents-d37819","caseName":"ROGER ASH, ET UX., Appellants\nvs.\nKEVIN BEAL, ET AL., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37819","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Roger and Sherill Ash appealed a judgment quieting title to a 20-foot wide tract of land in favor of Kevin and Barbara Beal, who claimed ownership by adverse possession. The Ashes argued the trial court erred in finding the Beals proved hostile possession. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the Beals' own testimony of seeking permission to use the tract negated the element of hostile possession, which is required for an adverse possession claim.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roger-ash-et-ux-appellants-v-kevin-beal-et-al-respondents-d37819","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:ed111564:2023-12-05","opinionId":"ee2a43d6-a4c5-5863-953d-6194011f8cfd","slug":"mallard-pointe-lot-owners-association-inc-respondent-v-thomas-flynn-wilma-111564","caseName":"Mallard Pointe Lot Owners Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Thomas Flynn & Wilma Hart-Flynn, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111564","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Thomas Flynn and Wilma Hart-Flynn appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Mallard Pointe Lot Owners Association, Inc., which had sought injunctive relief and damages for breach of a subdivision restrictive covenant. The Association alleged the Flynns violated the covenant by failing to submit a builder's checklist and construction deposit before building a fence. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the Association failed to provide the required 20 days' advance written notice for a hearing to impose a fine, as stipulated in the restrictive covenant.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mallard-pointe-lot-owners-association-inc-respondent-v-thomas-flynn-wilma-111564","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111623:2023-11-28","opinionId":"0a4f862e-1643-5d5c-9791-c1e68c37414f","slug":"topping-estates-carey-mullen-eric-danker-and-carter-oldfield-appellants-v-111623","caseName":"Topping Estates, Carey Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield, Appellants, vs. The Spalitto Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111623","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Topping Estates, a subdivision association, and its alleged trustees appealed from the circuit court's partial summary judgment, which found the subdivision's indentures expired, void, or invalid. The circuit court certified the order for appeal, but the appellate court determined that the partial summary judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because pending counterclaims arose from the same operative facts. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203043","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/topping-estates-carey-mullen-eric-danker-and-carter-oldfield-appellants-v-111623","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111562:2023-11-28","opinionId":"ed5415c9-9130-583f-a3fd-8cc88e6c7a1b","slug":"kenneth-p-aston-jr-and-lori-a-aston-as-trustees-for-the-kala-trust-respon-111562","caseName":"Kenneth P. Aston, Jr., and Lori A. Aston, as Trustees for the Kala Trust, Respondents, v. DBK Trust, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111562","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"DBK Trust, LLC appealed a judgment in favor of Kenneth and Lori Aston, trustees for the KALA Trust, on their petition to quiet title and for injunction. DBK alleged the trial court erred by prohibiting its sole member, W.B., from representing it, by denying its motion to continue, and by granting its attorney's motion to withdraw. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the challenged rulings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203042","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-p-aston-jr-and-lori-a-aston-as-trustees-for-the-kala-trust-respon-111562","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:ed111253:2023-11-28","opinionId":"7db58268-6b61-5df9-aecc-66f0eef2f849","slug":"custom-construction-solutions-llc-and-cannon-design-inc-plaintiffsrespond-111253","caseName":"Custom Construction Solutions, LLC, and Cannon Design, Inc., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. B&P Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants, and HH St. Louis Railway L.P., and Gamma Real Estate Capital, LLC, Defendants/Appellants, and Geotechnology, Inc., Trustees Services, Inc., and Concrete Strategies, LLC, Defendants/Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111253","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Custom Construction Solutions, LLC, Cannon Design, Inc., and Concrete Strategies, LLC, filed mechanic's liens against the Railway Exchange Building and parking garage, which the trial court found had priority over a deed of trust held by Gamma Real Estate Capital, LLC. HH St. Louis Railway, LP, was also found to have breached contracts with several claimants. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the waiver of Gamma's deed of trust priority but reversing the enforcement of Custom Construction's liens against the Railway Exchange Building and parking lot due to lack of work performed.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203039","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/custom-construction-solutions-llc-and-cannon-design-inc-plaintiffsrespond-111253","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85866:2023-11-14","opinionId":"b0c7e546-c9d8-58a6-b36b-5183d1cc8cc1","slug":"bg-land-development-llc-v-jackson-county-public-water-supply-district-17-d85866","caseName":"B&G Land Development, LLC\nvs.\nJackson County Public Water Supply District #17","caseNumber":"WD85866","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-11-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"B&G Land Development, L.L.C. appealed the circuit court's denial of its petition to detach property from Public Water Supply District No. 17 of Jackson County. B&G sought detachment to obtain lower tap fees from the City of Oak Grove. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the District was entitled to federal protection under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) because it had the capacity to provide water service to the area. The court also found that B&G lacked standing to challenge the water service agreement between the District and the City of Oak Grove.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bg-land-development-llc-v-jackson-county-public-water-supply-district-17-d85866","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:ed111110:2023-10-24","opinionId":"96e22f5c-3c70-51c4-88d7-4a3c28291ee1","slug":"melissa-cavin-respondent-v-barrie-hair-appellant-111110","caseName":"Melissa Cavin, Respondent, vs. Barrie Hair, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111110","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Barrie Hair appealed from a judgment quieting title to real property in favor of Melissa Cavin. Cavin claimed title through a small estate probate affidavit from her father's estate, while Hair asserted title by adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Cavin's probate filings constituted substantial evidence of her title and that Hair failed to prove his possession was hostile for adverse possession.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202261","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-cavin-respondent-v-barrie-hair-appellant-111110","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:ed111190:2023-10-10","opinionId":"3c42701b-13de-5348-95cd-569adde4a5bd","slug":"clarksboro-llc-and-wmac-2013-llc-appellants-v-city-of-overland-missouri-r-111190","caseName":"Clarksboro, LLC and WMAC 2013, LLC, Appellants, vs. City of Overland, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111190","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Clarksboro, LLC and WMAC 2013, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Overland, Missouri, which sought to demolish their building for code violations. The appellants had sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing the City accepted abatement of violations via a plea agreement and that the demolition order was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that appellants waived their arguments by failing to appear at the administrative hearing and by failing to timely file a petition for judicial review, which deprived the circuit court of statutory authority. The court also found that injunctive and declaratory relief was not available and that res judicata/collateral estoppel did not apply.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/clarksboro-llc-and-wmac-2013-llc-appellants-v-city-of-overland-missouri-r-111190","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":16,"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":"moappd:ed111226:2023-09-26","opinionId":"ecd39a17-a497-5121-9923-90ddbfe9613c","slug":"lisa-weber-et-al-appellants-v-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation-defe-111226","caseName":"Lisa Weber, et al., Appellants, v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED111226","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Lisa and Samuel Weber appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) on their petition for specific performance and breach of a real estate contract. The trial court found that an addendum to the contract limited the Webers' remedies to liquidated damages and waived specific performance and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the specific reason for FHLMC's termination was immaterial given the contractual limitation on remedies, and that the Webers' second argument regarding an indemnification scheme was unpreserved for appeal.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lisa-weber-et-al-appellants-v-federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation-defe-111226","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":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37889:2023-09-25","opinionId":"39d46fda-c74a-5439-8d23-0058d4127699","slug":"in-the-estate-of-anthony-m-vrana-decedent-sandra-fidura-phillips-appellan-d37889","caseName":"IN THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY M. VRANA, DECEDENT, SANDRA FIDURA-PHILLIPS, Appellant\nvs.\nAARON WILSON, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37889","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sandra Fidura-Phillips, as personal representative for Anthony Vrana's estate, sought court authorization to execute a contract for the sale of real estate. Aaron Wilson intervened, claiming ownership via a beneficiary deed that became effective upon Vrana's death. The probate court denied Fidura-Phillips's petition, ruling that the property was not part of the estate. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that because no deed was delivered prior to Vrana's death, the beneficiary deed transferred ownership to Wilson by operation of law, making specific performance of the contract unavailable.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","property-real-estate","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-anthony-m-vrana-decedent-sandra-fidura-phillips-appellan-d37889","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":"moappsd:sd37807:2023-09-12","opinionId":"ecfff7af-b83c-5d55-9030-328c73de61a8","slug":"jane-e-zamora-petitioner-appellant-v-hugo-e-zamora-respondent-respondent-d37807","caseName":"JANE E. ZAMORA, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nHUGO E. ZAMORA, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37807","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jane Zamora appealed the trial court's judgment in her dissolution of marriage action, challenging the classification of two real properties as marital property. Jane argued that the properties were excluded by written agreement or gifted to her by Hugo, her former husband. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Jane failed to overcome the presumption that the properties, acquired during the marriage, were marital property. The court concluded that the acknowledgements signed by Hugo did not constitute a valid written agreement to exclude the properties from marital property nor did they evidence a gift.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jane-e-zamora-petitioner-appellant-v-hugo-e-zamora-respondent-respondent-d37807","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":"moappsd:sd37897:2023-09-12","opinionId":"d3237baa-1ac5-524a-982e-8a58e53c48d3","slug":"rick-lisek-and-jennifer-lisek-plaintiffs-appellants-v-greg-taber-and-coll-d37897","caseName":"RICK LISEK AND JENNIFER LISEK, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nGREG TABER AND COLLEEN S. TABER, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37897","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Rick and Jennifer Lisek, property owners, sued Greg and Colleen Taber for money damages, alleging significant property damage after the Tabers abandoned an attempt to purchase the property via a contract for deed. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Tabers, finding the Liseks' claim barred by res judicata and improper claim splitting. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the Liseks' brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, specifically by not including the Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts and responses thereto, which materially impeded impartial review.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rick-lisek-and-jennifer-lisek-plaintiffs-appellants-v-greg-taber-and-coll-d37897","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:sd37921:2023-09-07","opinionId":"e9a15b14-0ac0-5075-8ff1-e6e539869247","slug":"carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-in-her-capacity-as-trustee-d37921","caseName":"CARMEN E. WOOD (f/k/a Carmen E. Ready), an individual in her capacity as Trustee of the Donald J. Ready and Carmen E. Ready Revocable Living Trust dated November 19, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nMILLSAP & SINGER, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37921","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Carmen E. Wood appealed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Millsap & Singer, P.C. on her claims for breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages. Wood argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on such a claim and by relying on a prior appellate decision involving a co-defendant, Bank of America. The appellate court affirmed, holding that summary judgment is permissible for breach of fiduciary duty claims and that the prior decision constituted binding law of the case. The court also found Wood's fourth point on appeal deficient due to multifariousness and lack of record references.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-in-her-capacity-as-trustee-d37921","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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111005:2023-08-29","opinionId":"b0750fed-1994-5dd4-b3ea-ad960d913c4c","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-organic-remedies-mo-inc-appellant-v-board-of-zon-111005","caseName":"State of Missouri ex rel. Organic Remedies Mo. Inc., Appellant, vs. Board of Zoning Adjustment of St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111005","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-29","year":2023,"display_summary":"Organic Remedies Mo, Inc. appealed the denial of a nonuse variance by the St. Louis County Board of Zoning Adjustment to construct a drive-through lane for its medical marijuana dispensary. The circuit court denied Organic's writ of certiorari. On appeal, Organic argued the Board applied the wrong standard, that its decision lacked substantial evidence, and that it failed to issue adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Organic failed to demonstrate practical difficulties and that the Board's findings were sufficient for review.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-organic-remedies-mo-inc-appellant-v-board-of-zon-111005","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":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":"moappd:ed110612:2023-07-25","opinionId":"d7e81952-94b4-5d87-ace9-569316343a0e","slug":"sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-110612","caseName":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza, Appellants, vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110612","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza purchased property with a barn that violated zoning ordinances, and a lawsuit was pending against the sellers. They bought a title insurance policy from Alliant National Title Insurance Co., which refused to defend them in the lawsuit, claiming lack of proper notice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Alliant National, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Alliant National's actual notice of the lawsuit, through its agent, was sufficient to trigger its coverage obligations under the policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-110612","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"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:ed111214:2023-07-18","opinionId":"c07222af-7893-5070-86c6-88e10c8d6d93","slug":"old-navy-llc-appellant-v-south-lakeview-plaza-i-llc-respondent-111214","caseName":"Old Navy, LLC, Appellant, vs. South Lakeview Plaza I, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111214","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Old Navy, LLC appealed the denial of its partial summary judgment motion and the grant of summary judgment for South Lakeview Plaza I, LLC, in a dispute over commercial lease property tax obligations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Old Navy's leased property was not separately assessed for real estate tax purposes within the meaning of the lease, as the new tax parcel was created for financing. However, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment based on waiver, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Old Navy's knowledge of the billing method. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197619","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/old-navy-llc-appellant-v-south-lakeview-plaza-i-llc-respondent-111214","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":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":"moappd:ed110120:2023-06-30","opinionId":"1a7b69ba-99af-5d5f-85e0-16544cdceeda","slug":"crown-diversified-industries-corp-et-al-respondent-v-jake-zimmerman-asses-110120","caseName":"Crown-Diversified Industries, Corp., et al., Respondent, vs. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110120","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jake Zimmerman, Assessor for St. Louis County, appealed the circuit court's judgment that reversed the State Tax Commission's (STC) order concerning property tax assessments. Commercial property owners (Taxpayers) alleged discriminatory assessments after the 2017 reassessment. The circuit court had found the STC erred and remanded for retrial with directions. The appellate court reversed the circuit court, holding that the STC's decision rejecting the Taxpayers' discrimination claims was supported by competent and substantial evidence and that the STC did not abuse its discretion in discovery rulings, thereby reinstating the STC's original order.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","property-real-estate","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/crown-diversified-industries-corp-et-al-respondent-v-jake-zimmerman-asses-110120","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"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:wd85620:2023-06-27","opinionId":"44fb4c69-7c2b-5bac-b6f0-7e4db5110e68","slug":"charles-e-copper-jr-and-anita-j-copper-v-minter-d-ringen-and-diane-e-ring-d85620","caseName":"Charles E. Copper Jr. and Anita J. Copper\nvs.\nMinter D. Ringen and Diane E. Ringen, As Co-Trustees of the Minter D. Ringen and Diane E. Ringen Family Trust, U/A Dated March 25, 2021","caseNumber":"WD85620","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Charles and Anita Copper appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Minter and Diane Ringen on the Coppers' petition for quiet title by adverse possession and the Ringens' counterclaim for ejectment. The Coppers claimed adverse possession of two parcels of land, arguing the trial court erred in finding their possession was not hostile and in granting ejectment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Coppers failed to prove the hostility element of adverse possession because the Ringens had granted them permission to use the land, and thus the ejectment claim was properly granted.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196860","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-e-copper-jr-and-anita-j-copper-v-minter-d-ringen-and-diane-e-ring-d85620","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:ed110783:2023-06-27","opinionId":"f3f3b3f5-bf2b-5cf8-9ab5-42ec1f8d9473","slug":"orin-wallace-and-donna-wallace-respondents-v-michael-p-byrne-appellant-110783","caseName":"Orin Wallace, and Donna Wallace, Respondents, v. Michael P. Byrne, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110783","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Orin and Donna Wallace sought a declaratory judgment regarding an easement over Michael Byrne's property, which they had used for access since 1994. The trial court declared the existence and location of an express easement, awarded damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees due to Byrne's interference. Byrne appealed, challenging the easement's existence and location, and the application of a balancing test. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that an express appurtenant easement existed and its location was established by description and use, and that a balancing test was inapplicable. The case was remanded for the trial court to calculate attorney fees on appeal for the Wallaces.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196959","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/orin-wallace-and-donna-wallace-respondents-v-michael-p-byrne-appellant-110783","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"}]}]}