Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Douglas Lee Barnes and Kyle Barnes Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
douglas-lee-barnes-and-kyle-barnes
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. 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 Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Douglas Lee Barnes and Kyle Barnes

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Douglas and Kyle Barnes appealed a summary judgment granting Joe D. Brown, as Successor Trustee of the George E. Heard Revocable Trust, possession of real property in an unlawful detainer action. The Barneses resided on the property under an oral agreement to perform maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, the tenancy was properly terminated, and the Barneses' claims regarding title or a gift of the property were not cognizable in an unlawful detainer action. The court also held that the unlawful detainer claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.