Ott Law Firm

G&S Masonry, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent v. MJC Constructors, Inc., and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendants/Appellants.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"remanded","scope":null}

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 criminal law 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 Southern District Case Style: G&S Masonry, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent v. MJC Constructors, Inc., and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendants/Appellants. Case Number: 26462 Handdown Date: 08/04/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Hon. Stephen R. Sharp Counsel for Appellant: Richard R. Hardcastle, III, and Scott A. Strange Counsel for Respondent: Thomas W. Millington Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John E. Parrish, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Bates, C.J., and Barney, J., concur Opinion: MJC Contractors, Inc., (MJC) requests this court to reverse the order of the trial court that denied a motion it filed requesting the trial court to stay litigation brought by G & S Masonry, Inc., (G & S) and to compel arbitration. This court declines. The trial court's order is affirmed. This case was previously before this court. The case was remanded (1) to enable the trial court to rule, had it not done so previously, on a motion by G & S that sought leave to amend its petition and (2) to determine whether the amount in dispute was $50,000 or more. See G & S Masonry, Inc. v. MJC Contractors, Inc., 164 S.W.3d 530 (Mo.App. 2005). That opinion may read in conjunction with this opinion for the purpose of identifying the facts that led to this appeal. Following remand, the trial court entered an order declaring that it had previously granted the motion G & S filed that sought to amend its petition; that G & S had been permitted to file an amended petition. The trial court found "that the amount presently in dispute in this case is $50,000 or more."

The parties do not dispute that the subcontract that is the basis for this action provides that claims between the subcontractor, G & S, and the contractor, MJC, are subject to resolution by lawsuit unless "the amount in controversy is less than $50,000.00." Thus, a valid agreement exists to arbitrate certain disputes between the parties to this appeal. However, because the amount in dispute does not fall within the parameters of the disputes that are subject to arbitration, i.e., the amount in controversy is not "less than $50,000.00," the substance of the dispute is not the type of dispute that the agreement requires to be arbitrated. See Greenpoint Credit, L.L.C. v. Reynolds, 151 S.W.3d 868, 873 (Mo.App. 2004). The trial court denied MJC's motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. Under the record before this court, there is no showing that there is an enforceable arbitration provision in the contract between G & S and MJC in that the amount in controversy has not been shown to be less than $50,000. The order denying the motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration is denied.

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.

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion