Ott Law Firm

Jason Kaufold, Appellant v. Chesterfield Village GP, LLC, d/b/a Chesterfield Village Apartments, LP and McCormack Baron Ragan Management Services, Inc., Respondents.

Decision date: UnknownSD28179

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Jason Kaufold

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"reversed","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 personal injury 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.

Syllabus

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: Jason Kaufold, Appellant v. Chesterfield Village GP, LLC, d/b/a Chesterfield Village Apartments, LP and McCormack Baron Ragan Management Services, Inc., Respondents. Case Number: 28178 Handdown Date: 07/16/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. J. Miles Sweeney Counsel for Appellant: David W. Ansley and Steven J. Blair Counsel for Respondent: Randy Scheer and Jacob Sappington Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Daniel E. Scott, Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Parrish, J. – Concurs. Rahmeyer, P.J. – Concurs In Part and Dissents in Part Opinion: Plaintiff sued a property owner and management company for his mother's wrongful death in an apartment fire. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. This case involves the same defendants, fire, lease form, exculpatory clause, claims, issues, and attorneys as, and was orally argued together with, Milligan v. Chesterfield Village GP, LLC, et al., No. 28179. Our reasoning in Milligan, decided today, applies equally here and compels similar results. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment herein for defendant Chesterfield, but reverse the judgment for defendant McCormack and remand plaintiff's claims against that defendant for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Milligan.

Separate Opinion: Opinion Dissenting in Part and Concurring in Part by Judge Rahmeyer: For the reasons set forth in my

dissent in Milligan v. Chesterfield Village GP, LLC, et al., No. SD28179, I respectfully dissent to the majority's opinion

that Paragraph 27 is unambiguous, but concur in the majority's opinion that Paragraph 27 does not preclude Plaintiff's claims against McCormack. In light of Lewis v. Snow Creek, Inc., 6 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) and Alack v. Vic Tanny International of Missouri, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo. banc 1996), I would find Paragraph 27 of the apartment lease to be ambiguous because its general language would include intentional torts and other causes of action which one may never use to exonerate oneself from future liability. This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

Read opinion
remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

Personal Injuryper_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

Read opinion