Kirkpatrick v. Huff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kirkpatrick v. Huff

351 S.W.3d 782, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1111, 2011 WL 3802154

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketWD 72244

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.W.3d 782 (Kirkpatrick v. Huff) 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

Kirkpatrick v. Huff, 351 S.W.3d 782, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1111, 2011 WL 3802154 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kevin and Kathy Kirkpatrick sued William and Margaret Huff for violation of restrictive covenants protecting the Kirk-patricks’ view of the Lake of the Ozarks from their lakefront residential property in Gravois Mills. They sought both injunc-tive relief in the form of removal of the offending portions of the Huffs’ neighboring home, as well as damages. The circuit court entered judgment for the Huffs following a bench trial, finding that the Huffs’ newly-constructed home did not violate the relevant restrictive covenants. The Kirkpatricks appeal. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kevin and Kathy Kirkpatrick sued William and Margaret Huff for violation of restrictive covenants protecting the Kirk-patricks’ view of the Lake of the Ozarks from their lakefront residential property in Gravois Mills. They sought both injunc-tive relief in the form of removal of the offending portions of the Huffs’ neighboring home, as well as damages. The circuit court entered judgment for the Huffs following a bench trial, finding that the Huffs’ newly-constructed home did not violate the relevant restrictive covenants. The Kirkpatricks appeal. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.3d 782, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1111, 2011 WL 3802154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkpatrick-v-huff-moctapp-2011.