LEINE v. Baker

Missouri Court of Appeals

LEINE v. Baker

238 S.W.3d 731, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2007 WL 3342110

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

DocketED 89024

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 S.W.3d 731 (LEINE v. Baker) 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

LEINE v. Baker, 238 S.W.3d 731, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2007 WL 3342110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael and Joyce Baker (“the Bakers”) appeal from the judgment in a declaratory *732 judgment action filed by Daryl and Dawn Leine, Rick and Pam Brown, Jim and Erma Johannes, and William and Kim Horner (collectively referred to as “the Neighbors”) declaring restrictive covenants remain in full force, enjoining the Bakers from advertising their property for sale as commercial property, and denying the Baker’s counterclaim for a declaration that the restrictive covenants are not applicable to their property. The Baker’s contend the trial court erred (1) in finding the Neighbors had not waived the right to enforce the covenants, and (2) in finding that the doctrine of laches did not bar the Neighbors’ suit.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael and Joyce Baker (“the Bakers”) appeal from the judgment in a declaratory *732 judgment action filed by Daryl and Dawn Leine, Rick and Pam Brown, Jim and Erma Johannes, and William and Kim Horner (collectively referred to as “the Neighbors”) declaring restrictive covenants remain in full force, enjoining the Bakers from advertising their property for sale as commercial property, and denying the Baker’s counterclaim for a declaration that the restrictive covenants are not applicable to their property. The Baker’s contend the trial court erred (1) in finding the Neighbors had not waived the right to enforce the covenants, and (2) in finding that the doctrine of laches did not bar the Neighbors’ suit.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 731, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2007 WL 3342110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leine-v-baker-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack