Niemann v. Chamblin Props., LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Niemann v. Chamblin Props., LLC

577 S.W.3d 522

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 25, 2019

DocketWD 81617

StatusPublished

This text of 577 S.W.3d 522 (Niemann v. Chamblin Props., LLC) 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

Niemann v. Chamblin Props., LLC, 577 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Chamblin Properties appeals the judgment of the Chariton County Circuit Court finding that Chamblin had to honor an agreement allowing the Respondents in this case to use a road over Chamblin's land. Chamblin complains in three points on appeal that the trial court erred in finding an easement of necessity, in finding a meeting of the minds between the parties, and ignoring the statute of frauds and binding non-parties to a contract. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Chamblin Properties appeals the judgment of the Chariton County Circuit Court finding that Chamblin had to honor an agreement allowing the Respondents in this case to use a road over Chamblin's land. Chamblin complains in three points on appeal that the trial court erred in finding an easement of necessity, in finding a meeting of the minds between the parties, and ignoring the statute of frauds and binding non-parties to a contract. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 S.W.3d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niemann-v-chamblin-props-llc-moctapp-2019.