Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Konert Farms Homeowners' Association 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
konert-farms-homeowners-association
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Konert Farms Homeowners' Association

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 12, 2020

Janet Behrick, Appellant, vs. Konert Farms Homeowners' Association, Respondent.

Respondent

Janet Behrick appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Konert Farms Homeowners' Association (HOA) and denial of her own motion for summary judgment. Behrick claimed the HOA had a duty under the subdivision's Declaration to repair and maintain a limestone rock wall in her backyard. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the natural limestone formation was neither a "retaining wall" nor "installed" by the Declarant as required by the unambiguous terms of the Declaration. The court also clarified that extrinsic evidence is permissible to establish a breach of contract, even when the contract itself is unambiguous.