Judgment of Unlawful Detainer Affirmed

Unlawful detainer statute does not address title, only immediate possession as against unlawful occupants, foreclosed mortgagees, and holdover employees or tenants. Respondent established that appellants were tenants, by proving that respondent let appellants occupy property in exchange for appellants’ services, even without a written lease. Statute deemed that tenancy month to month, subject to termination on one month’s notice, which respondent established by showing delivery through counsel. Appellants raised no genuine dispute as to those or any other material facts, so the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to respondent. Time for adverse possession does not apply to a landlord-tenant relationship because the tenancy is not adverse to the landlord.
Joe D. Brown, in his Capacity as Successor Trustee of the George E. Heard Revocable Trust, Dated February 24, 2000 vs. Douglas Lee Barnes and Kyle Barnes
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84279

If you would like to speak with an attorney, give us a call at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Objections Are a Strategic Choice

“There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case.” Among those ways are the strategic choices of objecting or not objecting to the State’s questioning. When defendant is doing well under questioning, an objection may undercut the defendant’s credibility. A matter may be better addressed through cross-examination than in an objection. An objection may draw more attention to testimony than desirable.

ALLEN TUCKER, Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD36845

If you would like to speak with an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Ouster from LLC Results in Damages

Statutes governing a limited liability company set forth the rights of an expelled member, which no provision in the parties’ operating agreement altered only by adding specified payments. But nothing showed that those payments were in lieu of rights under the statutes, or the operating agreement, and they did not support an accord and satisfaction. Circuit court did not err in considering related portions of operating agreement. Appellants did not show that circuit court erred in determining LLC’s value, as an amount distinct from its net worth, and the circuit court’s credibility determinations are due deference on appeal. Circuit court did not err in awarding punitive damages and attorney fees.

STEVEN CHADWICK, Respondent vs. ROBERT HUNTOON and GEORGE SWEARENGIN, Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD36850

If you would like to speak to an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Verified Petition Does Not Establish Material Fact

Adverse possession is difficult to prove by summary judgment because the parties’ intentions are so great a part of that theory. The element of actual possession includes actual control and the intent to exclude all other persons. Conclusory assertions do not support themselves and must have evidence in the summary judgment record to establish them. “[A]n allegation from one’s own verified petition is not sufficient documentation to support a statement of uncontroverted fact.” Survey drawing and aerial photographs showed disputed land but not actual possession.

Joseph Elyachar and Michael Elyachar vs. Big Bob’s Flooring Outlet of America, Inc., and Floors & More, LLC and Vincent Virga
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84118

If you would like to speak with an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Plea Offer Not Confidential

A plea offer is not a confidential or privileged communication, so plea counsel violated no rule of professional conduct in contacting movant’s parents for their help in persuading movant to take the plea offer. The motion alleges that movant would have accepted the State’s plea offer but for plea counsel’s disclosure of the plea deal to movant’s parents, but the record refutes that allegation, by showing that movant never even considered the plea offer.

Marcus Greer, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED109340

If you would like to speak to an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Sunshine Law Request Must Designate Custodian

In an action against a public governmental body for penalties under the Sunshine Law, the elements include receipt of the request by the body’s custodian of records. For the prosecuting attorney’s office, statute provides that the prosecuting attorney or a designee is the custodian, and substantial compliance with that element is not sufficient. Evidence showed that the recipient of appellant’s request was a paralegal, who assembled documents in response to Sunshine Law Requests, but not the custodian. “[S]imply serving as the contact person on prior Sunshine Law requests is an insufficient basis to find apparent authority.” Judgment for respondent affirmed.

Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis vs. Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD83634

If you would like to speak to an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Camron Hoorfar named as a 2020 and 2021 Missouri and Kansas SuperLawyer Rising Star

For the ninth year in a row, attorney and owner Camron Hoorfar has been named as a Missouri and Kansas Rising Star by SuperLawyers. Camron Hoorfar is featured in the SuperLawyers magazine for Missouri and Kansas in the 2020 and 2021 editions. This honor is reserved for lawyers who exhibit excellence in their practice.  Only 2.5% of attorneys in Missouri and Kansas receive this distinction.

You can read the most recent publication here.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

No Discovery of Attorney Work Product

A statute provides that medical records are discoverable by the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts in litigation before the Administrative Hearing Commission without regard to any privilege. That statute is within HIPAA, prevails over the physician’s duty of confidentiality, and constitutes a specific exception to the statute generally requiring the Board to have patient consent or a subpoena. Interrogatories may discover the identities of persons with knowledge of the facts, and even a witness list eventually, but the “subject and substance of [such person’s] knowledge” is attorney work product. On a writ of prohibition, when circuit court granted a preliminary writ but denied a permanent writ, the circuit court’s judgment is subject to appeal.
State of Missouri ex rel. John L. Putnam, M.D. vs. State Board of Registration for The Healing Arts and The Administrative Hearing Commission
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84394

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Cause for Quitting Unrelated to Work

Statutes bar benefits to claimant who quits work without good cause, which includes a medical condition, but only if related to work. Claimant ceased to return contacts from employer, though employer held claimant’s job for claimant, which constituted quitting. Claimant’s cause for quitting was a medical condition, but claimant did not show that the condition was work-related, so the Court of Appeals affirms the denial of benefits.
Michael Menley, Claimant/Appellant, vs. JJF & C, LLC., Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED109507

Want to speak with an attorney? Call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

No Stay for Arbitration Without a Motion to Compel Arbitration

Missouri statutes and United States statutes allow an interlocutory appeal from circuit court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. But no such order exists, because appellants sought none; appellants sought only an abeyance of circuit court action pending litigation in United States District Court in Massachusetts.

Joseph Elyachar and Michael Elyachar vs. Big Bob’s Flooring Outlet of America, Inc., and Floors & More, LLC and Vincent Virga
(Overview Summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD84118

If you would like to speak with an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website to schedule a free consultation.

Posted in General | Leave a comment