Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Vacation Management Solutions, LLC 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
vacation-management-solutions-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Vacation Management Solutions, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 28, 2023

Kyle Klosterman, Appellant, vs. Vacation Management Solutions, LLC, Respondent.

Respondent

Kyle Klosterman sued Vacation Management Solutions, LLC (VMS) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) after VMS canceled his reservation and offered a new one at a higher price. The trial court denied Klosterman's motion for partial summary judgment and, following a bench trial, entered judgment for VMS, finding Klosterman did not purchase merchandise. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing VMS to file a late response to the summary judgment motion, and that VMS did not violate the MMPA because its terms and conditions allowed for price changes without notice.