Entertainment Cruise Productions v. Schmersahl

Missouri Court of Appeals

Entertainment Cruise Productions v. Schmersahl

488 S.W.3d 682, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 157, 2016 WL 720686

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102950

StatusPublished

This text of 488 S.W.3d 682 (Entertainment Cruise Productions v. Schmersahl) 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

Entertainment Cruise Productions v. Schmersahl, 488 S.W.3d 682, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 157, 2016 WL 720686 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Schmersahl (Appellant) appeals the order and judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County finding in favor of Michael Lazaroff (Respondent). In its judgment, the trial court concluded that the parties’ partnership to promote themed leisure cruises was dissolved in July 2012 and' that the parties did not enter into a subsequent enforceable partnership agreement. The trial court also' found that the partnership was equitably dissolved. In five points on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in: 1) finding in favor of Respondent on Appellant’s counterclaims; 2) finding that the dissolution of the partnership barred Appellant’s counterclaims because .Respondent did not plead such as an affirmative defense; 3) concluding that Appellant “substantially repudiated” the partnership; 4) finding that the partnership was equitably dissolved; and 5) failing to follow the bifurcation order. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Schmersahl (Appellant) appeals the order and judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County finding in favor of Michael Lazaroff (Respondent). In its judgment, the trial court concluded that the parties’ partnership to promote themed leisure cruises was dissolved in July 2012 and' that the parties did not enter into a subsequent enforceable partnership agreement. The trial court also' found that the partnership was equitably dissolved. In five points on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in: 1) finding in favor of Respondent on Appellant’s counterclaims; 2) finding that the dissolution of the partnership barred Appellant’s counterclaims because .Respondent did not plead such as an affirmative defense; 3) concluding that Appellant “substantially repudiated” the partnership; 4) finding that the partnership was equitably dissolved; and 5) failing to follow the bifurcation order. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 S.W.3d 682, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 157, 2016 WL 720686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entertainment-cruise-productions-v-schmersahl-moctapp-2016.