Ott Law Firm

Lonnie D. Snelling, Appellant, v. Springbok Enterprise-d/b/a, Global Edge Asset Management, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Decision date: March 10, 2009ED91999

Parties & Roles

Judges

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"remanded","scope":null}
  • {"type":"dismissed","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 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

LONNIE D. SNELLING, ) No. ED91999 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis vs. ) ) Honorable Michael Mullen SPRINGBOK ENTERPRISE-d/b/a, ) GLOBAL EDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT, ) LLC, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) FILED: March 10, 2009

Lonnie D. Snelling ("Snelling") appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Springbok Enterprise ("Springbok") dismissing Snelling's Petition for lack of standing to sue. We reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Snelling's Petition alleges that he is a leaseholder for property at 5039 Kensington Avenue ("the property"). Springbok owns the adjacent property. Snelling alleges that people working on the roof of Springbok's property entered his property, vandalized it, and removed wiring, sockets, and other debris. Snelling sued Springbok for trespass, conversion, nuisance, negligent hiring, and conspiracy. Springbok filed a motion to dismiss attacking Snelling's interest in the property, arguing to the trial court that

2 Snelling must prove his interest in the real estate in the pleadings. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the cause for lack of standing. Snelling appeals. II. DISCUSSION In his sole point on appeal, Snelling argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because he sufficiently pled that he had standing to bring the cause of action. We agree. Snelling's pleadings allege that he holds a lease to the property. Springbok's assertion that Snelling must prove the allegations of his pleading prior to a hearing is incorrect. Williams v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. , 174 S.W.3d 556, 559-560 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005). A petition need not plead evidentiary facts showing entitlement to the relief sought. Id. at 560. Rather, it merely needs to plead ultimate facts demonstrating such an entitlement. Id. Based upon the ultimate facts pled, Snelling has an interest in the property. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of standing. Point granted. III. CONCLUSION The judgment is reversed and remanded.

_____________________________ Roy L. Richter, Presiding Judge Lawrence E. Mooney, J., Concurs George W. Draper III, J., Concurs

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