Nesimovic, LLC v. Lindsey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nesimovic, LLC v. Lindsey

520 S.W.3d 836, 2017 WL 2772613, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 636

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104482

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 836 (Nesimovic, LLC v. Lindsey) 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

Nesimovic, LLC v. Lindsey, 520 S.W.3d 836, 2017 WL 2772613, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 636 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Nesimovic, LLC (“Landlord”), the plaintiff in a rent-and-possession action, appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendants Will and Andrea Lindsey (by their first names individually, “the Lind-seys” collectively). Because the record supports a conclusion that the Lindseys did not yet owe any rent under an oral modification to the parties’ lease agreement, the trial court did not err in entering judgment for the Lindseys.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

Nesimovic, LLC (“Landlord”), the plaintiff in a rent-and-possession action, appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendants Will and Andrea Lindsey (by their first names individually, “the Lind-seys” collectively). Because the record supports a conclusion that the Lindseys did not yet owe any rent under an oral modification to the parties’ lease agreement, the trial court did not err in entering judgment for the Lindseys.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 S.W.3d 836, 2017 WL 2772613, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesimovic-llc-v-lindsey-moctapp-2017.