Hereford v. Owners Ass'n of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hereford v. Owners Ass'n of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium

476 S.W.3d 312, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1171, 2015 WL 7253161

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102040

StatusPublished

This text of 476 S.W.3d 312 (Hereford v. Owners Ass'n of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium) 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

Hereford v. Owners Ass'n of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium, 476 S.W.3d 312, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1171, 2015 WL 7253161 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Hereford (“Hereford”) and Page Group, Inc. (“Page Group”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Owners Association of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium (the “Association”) and Buckingham Place Condo Association, L.L.C. (collectively, “Respondents”) following a bench trial. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and oral arguments as well as the record on appeal. We also have reviewed Respondents’ motion for attorneys’ fees on [313]*313appeal. We find: 1) the trial court did not err in entering judgment against Appellants because the court had jurisdiction over Page Group; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Respondents attorneys’ fees in the amount of $35,000; 3) the trial court did not err in entering judgment against Appellants on then.- claim to access the books and records of the Association because the Association complied with its obligation under the Association Bylaws; and 4) Respondents’ motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal is granted. Respondents are given judgment, for which execution shall issue, for $34,488.50 representing attorney’s fees on appeal. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Hereford (“Hereford”) and Page Group, Inc. (“Page Group”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Owners Association of 7569-7571 Buckingham Condominium (the “Association”) and Buckingham Place Condo Association, L.L.C. (collectively, “Respondents”) following a bench trial. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and oral arguments as well as the record on appeal. We also have reviewed Respondents’ motion for attorneys’ fees on [313]*313appeal. We find: 1) the trial court did not err in entering judgment against Appellants because the court had jurisdiction over Page Group; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Respondents attorneys’ fees in the amount of $35,000; 3) the trial court did not err in entering judgment against Appellants on then.- claim to access the books and records of the Association because the Association complied with its obligation under the Association Bylaws; and 4) Respondents’ motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal is granted. Respondents are given judgment, for which execution shall issue, for $34,488.50 representing attorney’s fees on appeal. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 312, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1171, 2015 WL 7253161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hereford-v-owners-assn-of-7569-7571-buckingham-condominium-moctapp-2015.