Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Matthew F. Edler and Adrea Edler 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
matthew-f-edler-and-adrea-edler
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Matthew F. Edler and Adrea Edler

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Matthew and Andrea Edler appealed a trial court's judgment that denied them riparian rights to an artificial lake owned by the Incline Village Board of Trustees and awarded attorney's fees to the Board. The Edlers, who owned a lake-abutting lot in a different subdivision, argued the lake had become natural, granting them common law riparian rights. The appellate court affirmed the declaratory judgment denying riparian rights, finding the Edlers failed to show reliance or equitable grounds. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees, concluding that the Edlers' claim, though unsuccessful, was not entirely meritless and lacked the special circumstances required for such an award.