Platonov v. Barn, LP

Missouri Court of Appeals

Platonov v. Barn, LP

269 S.W.3d 545, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406, 2008 WL 4553065

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

DocketED 91102

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W.3d 545 (Platonov v. Barn, LP) 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

Platonov v. Barn, LP, 269 S.W.3d 545, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406, 2008 WL 4553065 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Viacheslav Platonov (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment granting The Barn, LP, formerly known and d/b/a the Barn at Lucerne, LP (Barn), and Paul Londe Revocable Trust (collectively Defendants) their motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants because: (1) Plaintiffs contractual right to purchase an interest in the Barn vested before the First Amendment to Lease (Amendment) was executed, Plaintiff was not a party to the Amendment, and; (2) Defendants’ statement of uncontroverted material facts was contradicted by Plaintiff. We affirm. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendants' brief taken with the case is denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Viacheslav Platonov (Plaintiff) appeals from the judgment granting The Barn, LP, formerly known and d/b/a the Barn at Lucerne, LP (Barn), and Paul Londe Revocable Trust (collectively Defendants) their motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants because: (1) Plaintiffs contractual right to purchase an interest in the Barn vested before the First Amendment to Lease (Amendment) was executed, Plaintiff was not a party to the Amendment, and; (2) Defendants’ statement of uncontroverted material facts was contradicted by Plaintiff. We affirm. 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of Defendants' brief taken with the case is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 545, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406, 2008 WL 4553065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/platonov-v-barn-lp-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack