Cornelius v. Lieber

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cornelius v. Lieber

182 S.W.3d 581, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2005 WL 2850385

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2005

DocketED 85356

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 581 (Cornelius v. Lieber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornelius v. Lieber, 182 S.W.3d 581, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2005 WL 2850385 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John W. Lieber, Jr. and Susan S. Lieber appeal from a trial court judgment entered in favor of James D. Cornelius and Athena T. Cornelius on their Petition in Equity to quiet title to certain real property by adverse possession. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties. and the record on appeal and conclude that sufficient evidence existed from which the trial court could determine that the Building met the open and notorious requirement for adverse possession and that in balancing the equities, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not enforcing Sunset Hills’ setback requirements by ordering the removal of the Building. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John W. Lieber, Jr. and Susan S. Lieber appeal from a trial court judgment entered in favor of James D. Cornelius and Athena T. Cornelius on their Petition in Equity to quiet title to certain real property by adverse possession. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties. and the record on appeal and conclude that sufficient evidence existed from which the trial court could determine that the Building met the open and notorious requirement for adverse possession and that in balancing the equities, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not enforcing Sunset Hills’ setback requirements by ordering the removal of the Building. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 581, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2005 WL 2850385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-v-lieber-moctapp-2005.