CORPORATE VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent v. CORPORATE VILLAGE, LLC, Defendant-Appellant and SOUTHERN BANK, Intervenor

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: SD38649
• Status: Published

Opinion

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

In Division CORPORATE VILLAGE OWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SD38649 ) CORPORATE VILLAGE, LLC, ) Filed: August 26, 2025 ) Defendant-Appellant, ) ) and ) ) SOUTHERN BANK, ) ) Intervenor. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Jerry A. Harmison, Jr.

AFFIRMED

Corporate Village Condominium (the “Condominium Development”) is a

commercial condominium development in Springfield (“City”), and it was created on

June 9, 2004, when the appellant, Corporate Village, LLC (the “Declarant”), filed in the

Greene County real estate records the Declaration of Condominium of Corporate Village

Condominium (the “Declaration”) and the original plat, which subjected 10.2 acres of

land to the provisions of the Declaration and the Uniform Condominium Act, sections

1 448.1-101 et seq. (the “UCA”). The circuit court held a bench trial on Declarant’s and

Corporate Village Owners Association, Inc.’s (the “Association”) competing claims for

quiet title to two undeveloped acres of land (the “Undeveloped Area”) within the

Condominium Development and a declaratory judgment setting forth any remaining

development rights in the Undeveloped Area reserved by Declarant in the Declaration.

The first of Declarant’s two points on appeal claims the circuit court erred in

concluding Declarant is prohibited from creating or constructing additional units within

the Undeveloped Area due to the expiration of Declarant’s development rights.

Declarant’s second point claims the circuit court erred by quieting title to the

Undeveloped Area to the unit owners of the Condominium Development instead of in

Declarant’s favor. We find no merit in either point and affirm the judgment of the circuit

court.

Standard of Review

“A judgment is presumed correct, and the party challenging the judgment bears

the burden of proving it erroneous.” Lands’ End Props., LLC v. Grand Meridian

Condo. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 711 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025). “In this court-

tried case, our review is governed by Rule 84.13(d) and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d

30, 31-32 (Mo. banc 1976).” Id. We must affirm the judgment “unless it is not

supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it

erroneously declares or applies the law.” Id. (citing Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189, 198-

99 (Mo. banc 2014)).

“When considering whether the court misapplied the law, we review the court’s

legal conclusions and application of law to the facts de novo.” Id. Our de novo review

2 also applies to the interpretation of statutes and the language of a condominium

declaration. Id. at 570-71.

Factual Background and Procedural History

“[W]e view the evidence and any reasonable inferences therefrom in the light

most favorable to the court’s decision and disregard all contrary evidence and

inferences.” Id. (quoting In re C.C.S., 393 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)).

Viewed in that light, the applicable facts are as follows.

When Declarant created the Condominium Development in 2004, it intended (as

evidenced on the plans submitted to City in 2003) to construct eleven buildings -- nine

for office condominium units and two for retail condominium units. Declarant elected to

construct the Condominium Development in stages, and the original plat contained only

one building that would house four office units.

Each time that Declarant completed the construction of a new building, it filed an

amended plat of the Condominium Development depicting the newly constructed

building(s). A total of eighteen plats were filed by Declarant affecting the Condominium

Development. 1 The most recent plat, filed in 2010, depicts the two buildings constructed

for retail units, along with six of the nine originally-planned buildings housing office

units, a total of eight buildings. Declarant has sold all 34 units depicted on the most

recent plat.

This appeal involves Declarant’s recent attempt to construct either three one-story

buildings (as Declarant originally intended) or a single four-story building on the

Undeveloped Area of the Condominium Development (the “Proposed Units”). In 2020,

1 Some of the amended plats were replats of existing units and were not filed to encompass recently constructed units.

3 when the unit owners and the Association became aware that Declarant had received

City’s approval to construct a four-story building, the Association filed suit against

Declarant. The Association contended that the Undeveloped Area of the Condominium

Development is a common element owned by the unit owners and any development

rights that Declarant had possessed expired due to the terms of the Declaration. At trial,

Declarant contended that it still owned the Undeveloped Area in fee simple, but even if

the unit owners owned the Undeveloped Area, Declarant could still exercise its reserved

development rights as set forth in the Declaration.

After that bench trial was completed, the circuit court entered its judgment in

favor of the Association that declared the Undeveloped Area was owned in common by

the unit owners, not by Declarant, on the ground that Declarant’s right to develop the

Proposed Units in the Undeveloped Area expired on June 9, 2014, due to the ten-year

time limit that Declarant placed on its development rights found in section 10.2 of the

Declaration. As applicable here, section 10.2 of the Declaration provides: “In

accordance with and subject to the [UCA], the Declarant reserves the right, but shall not

have the obligation, until ten (10) years from the date of the recording of this Declaration

. . . [t]o create up to sixty (60) Office Units in up to ten (10) Office Buildings[.]” The

parties do not dispute that section 10.2 limited Declarant’s reserved development rights to

ten years. Declarant, however, argues that the Proposed Units were “created” before

Declarant’s development rights expired in 2014.

To support that argument, Declarant claims the ten-year limitation did not require

Declarant to substantially construct the Proposed Units before the time limit expired.

Instead, Declarant argued that all it had to do before the end of the ten-year deadline was

4 to “describe the rights that the declarant reserves[,]”which it identified as “reserv[ing] the

right to create units[.]” Declarant asserts that the Proposed Units were legally “created”

by the 17 amended plats that Declarant had filed prior to the expiration of its

development rights and by installing utility infrastructure necessary to support the

contemplated building(s).

Of the 17 amended plats filed in the real estate records, none depict either three

one-story office buildings or a single four-story building.

Analysis

Point 2

We address Point 2 first because it challenges the circuit court’s judgment

quieting title to the Undeveloped Area in the unit owners as a common element of the

Condominium Development. That point claims:

The trial court erred in failing to quiet title to the [Undeveloped Area] in [Declarant] on the basis of equity, because the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, in that the evidence shows that the Association acknowledged that [Declarant] owned the disputed land, it requested [Declarant] to remove homeless people and trash from it, it allowed [Declarant] to mow and maintain it, all the while saying nothing until [Declarant] broke ground on the four-story building project, to [Declarant]’s damage.

We are unable to reach the merits of this claim because the argument section of

Declarant’s brief fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements set forth in Rule 84.04(e). 2

“An argument that fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e) preserves nothing for

appeal.” Auman v. Richard, 672 S.W.3d 277, 283 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting

Washington v. Blackburn, 286 S.W.3d 818, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)). Under Rule

84.04(e), the argument section “must provide sufficient analytical support for the claim of

2 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2025).

5 reversible error.” Id. (quoting Crowley v. Clarcor/Gen. Elec. & Treasurer, 655 S.W.3d

778, 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)). “The argument should develop the claim of error by

showing the interaction between the relevant principles of law and the facts of the

particular case.” Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo. App.

E.D. 2009).

“If a party does not support contentions with relevant authority or argument

beyond conclusory statements, the point is deemed abandoned.” Id. “If a point is not a

matter of first impression and precedent is available, with limited exceptions, the

appellant must cite to authority if [the appellant] wishes to prevail.” Id. (quoting

Donovan v. Temp. Help, 54 S.W.3d 718, 720 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)). The appellant’s

“argument must tie the legal principles together with the facts at hand in order to make

their argument.” Sharp v. All-N-One Plumbing, 612 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Mo. App. W.D.

2020).

Here, Declarant’s second point asserts it should have prevailed “on the basis of

equity[.]” Despite that claim, Declarant’s brief fails to cite any case that resolved a quiet-

title dispute “on the basis of equity[.]” In fact, the only legal citation mentioned in

Declarant’s argument on Point 2 relies on the theory of estoppel, a theory that is not

asserted in Point 2. See Hawley v. Tseona, 453 S.W.3d 837, 842 n.6 (Mo. App. W.D.

2014) (“Issues that are raised only in the argument portion of the brief and are not

contained in the point relied on are not preserved for appellate review”) (quoting

Manzella v. Dir. of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393, 395 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)). In the

absence of relevant legal authority, Declarant’s argument provides only statements of

fact, many of which are asserted without a citation to the record, a violation of Rule

6 84.04(e). See Auman, 672 S.W.3d at 281 (“With respect to factual assertions in an

argument section, Rule 84.04(e) provides: ‘All factual assertions in the argument shall

have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal

file, transcript, or exhibits’”).

We are not permitted to act as Declarant’s advocate by crafting an argument that

would satisfy Rule 84.04(e). Because Declarant has not developed Point 2 by showing

the interaction between the relevant principles of law and the facts of the case, we deem

Point 2 abandoned. See Murphy v. Steiner, 658 S.W.3d 588, 593 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022)

(“When an appellant fails to cite relevant law and explain how it applies to the applicable

facts, we deem the point abandoned”) (quoting Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 261

S.W.3d 708, 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)).

Point 1

Point 1 claims:

The trial court erred by declaring that § 10.2 of the Declaration of Condominium “restricts and prohibits” [Declarant] “from creating additional office units or constructing additional office buildings or improvements of any kind in [the Undeveloped Area],” because the court erroneously applied the law, in that

(a) the court conflated creation of office units with developing the property, and

(b) [Declarant] had exercised its development rights to create additional office units long before the June 9, 2014, deadline by amending the plat 17 times, which served to amend the Declaration, and by installing utilities infrastructure required by the City of Springfield in order to prepare [the Undeveloped Area] for future development.

We disagree.

7 Because “[c]ondominium ownership is a creature of statute[,]” we look to the

“Uniform Condominium Act, § 448.1-101 et seq. (‘UCA’) [that] applies to all

condominiums created in Missouri after September 28, 1983.” Haines v. Branson Cabin

Rentals, LLC, 635 S.W.3d 172, 174-75 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted).

Under the UCA, a condominium developer may reserve development rights within the

common elements so long as the declaration contains “[a] description of any development

rights and other special declarant rights reserved by the declarant, together with a legally

sufficient description of the real estate to which each of those rights applies, and a time

limit within which each of those rights shall be exercised.” Section 448.2-105.1(8). 3

Here, Declarant did so in section 10.2 of the Declaration, which states, “In accordance

with and subject to the [UCA], the Declarant reserves the right, but shall not have the

obligation, until ten (10) years from the date of the recording of this Declaration . . . [t]o

create up to sixty (60) Office Units in up to ten (10) Office Buildings” in the

Undeveloped Area.

The circuit court concluded that Declarant’s development rights expired June 9,

2014, ten years after the Declaration was recorded on June 9, 2004. Declarant does not

challenge that conclusion on appeal. Instead, Declarant argues the circuit court erred in

erroneously applying the law because the Proposed Units were legally created prior to the

expiration of Developer’s development rights by the amended plats Declarant filed and

the utility infrastructure Declarant installed. Again, we look to the UCA to determine if,

and when, Declarant legally “created” the Proposed Units.

3 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2016.

8 “To exercise any development right reserved under subdivision (1) of section

448.2-105, the declarant shall prepare, execute, and record an amendment to the

declaration and comply with section 448.2-109.” Section 448.2-110.1. “Upon exercising

any development right, the declarant shall record . . . new plats and plans necessary to

conform to the requirements of subsections 1, 2, and 4 of this section[.]”4 Section 448.2-

109.6. “Plats and plans are a part of the declaration.” Section 448.2-109.1. Further,

No . . . amendment to a declaration adding units to a condominium shall be recorded unless all structural components and mechanical systems of all buildings containing or comprising any units thereby created are substantially completed in accordance with the plans, as evidenced by a recorded certificate of completion executed by a registered and licensed engineer or architect.

Section 448.2-101.2 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in applying the law

because the Proposed Units were never legally “created” through the declaration

amendment process contemplated by the UCA. Although Declarant directs us to the

numerous amended plats that Declarant filed -- which amended the Declaration for the

units depicted therein -- none of them depict the Proposed Units, nor could they. Again,

under section 448.2-101.2,

No declaration or amendment to a declaration adding units to a condominium shall be recorded unless all structural components and mechanical systems of all buildings containing or comprising any units thereby created are substantially completed in accordance with the plans, as evidenced by a recorded certificate of completion executed by a registered and licensed engineer or architect.

Declarant has not presented for our review a recorded certificate of completion

evidencing that the Proposed Units have been substantially completed. Further,

4 As they are not relevant to this appeal, we do not recite subsections 1, 2, and 4 of section 448.2-109.6 for purposes of brevity.

9 Declarant has not directed us to any provision in the Declaration or the UCA that relates

to the installation of utility infrastructure as “creating” additional units within a

development.

We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously apply the law in declaring

that section 10.2 of the Declaration “restricts and prohibits” Declarant from creating or

constructing “buildings or improvements of any kind” in the Undeveloped Area. Point 1

is denied, and the well-reasoned judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

DON E. BURRELL, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – CONCURS

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. – CONCURS