Rechtien v. Cooper

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rechtien v. Cooper

535 S.W.3d 428

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 26, 2017

DocketWD 80079

StatusPublished

This text of 535 S.W.3d 428 (Rechtien v. Cooper) 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

Rechtien v. Cooper, 535 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Michael Cooper appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Boone County following a bench trial The circuit court’s judgment quieted title to a piece of real property in Boone County in Respondents David and Christine Rechtien. The judgment also denied Cooper’s counterclaim seeking specific performance of an agreement which gave him an option to purchase the property. Cooper argues that the circuit court erroneously found that he had failed to timely exercise his purchase option. He also argues that the Rechtiens waived, or are estopped from asserting, any deadline for his exercise of the option, and that his timely performance is excused by the Re-chtiens’ anticipatory repudiation of the agreement.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Michael Cooper appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Boone County following a bench trial The circuit court’s judgment quieted title to a piece of real property in Boone County in Respondents David and Christine Rechtien. The judgment also denied Cooper’s counterclaim seeking specific performance of an agreement which gave him an option to purchase the property. Cooper argues that the circuit court erroneously found that he had failed to timely exercise his purchase option. He also argues that the Rechtiens waived, or are estopped from asserting, any deadline for his exercise of the option, and that his timely performance is excused by the Re-chtiens’ anticipatory repudiation of the agreement.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 S.W.3d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rechtien-v-cooper-moctapp-2017.