Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Gerald Geiler, Appellant, v. James Schlereth and Anna Schlereth, Respondents.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Gerald Geiler

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar real estate issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Gerald Geiler, Appellant, v. James Schlereth and Anna Schlereth, Respondents. Case Number: 72092 and 72141 Handdown Date: 11/04/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Dennis J. Kehm Counsel for Appellant: George B. McElroy Counsel for Respondent: Mark D. Waldemer Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Appellant, Gerald Geiler, filed a petition to set aside a collector's deed issued to James and Anna Schlereth (Respondents). Appellant alleged he had a valid interest in the property and had timely redeemed such property. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging, inter alia, Appellant had failed to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained Respondents' motion and Appellant appealed. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930

affirmed

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Read The Real Estate GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam1,904 words
Read opinion

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

Read The Real Estate GuideGuideRead opinion

Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073

reversed

In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.

Read The Real Estate GuideGuideRead opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

Read The Real Estate GuideGuideRead opinion