S.D. Investments, Inc. v. Boes

Missouri Court of Appeals

S.D. Investments, Inc. v. Boes

258 S.W.3d 839, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 683, 2008 WL 2095427

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2008

DocketWD 68338

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 S.W.3d 839 (S.D. Investments, Inc. v. Boes) 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

S.D. Investments, Inc. v. Boes, 258 S.W.3d 839, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 683, 2008 WL 2095427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

In Appellants’ third appeal concerning their obligations as landlord under an option to purchase in a lease agreement with Respondent (the tenant), judgment in favor of the tenant is affirmed. This appeal is taken from the grant of summary judgment for Respondent in an action for ejectment. Appellants bring two points on appeal. In the first point, Appellant Verlin Boes argues that the court erred in finding him personally liable because the actions alleged were those of limited liability business entities and Respondent did not plead or prove the elements necessary to pierce the veil of such entities. In the second *840 point, Appellants Verlin Boes and Verlin J. Boes & Associates, Inc. assert that the court erred in granting judgment against them in that Respondent failed to plead or prove that either of them was in possession of the property at issue for purposes of ejectment. On review of the record, this court determines that both points are without merit. A memorandum explaining the reasoning used by this court has been provided to the parties.

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

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

In Appellants’ third appeal concerning their obligations as landlord under an option to purchase in a lease agreement with Respondent (the tenant), judgment in favor of the tenant is affirmed. This appeal is taken from the grant of summary judgment for Respondent in an action for ejectment. Appellants bring two points on appeal. In the first point, Appellant Verlin Boes argues that the court erred in finding him personally liable because the actions alleged were those of limited liability business entities and Respondent did not plead or prove the elements necessary to pierce the veil of such entities. In the second *840 point, Appellants Verlin Boes and Verlin J. Boes & Associates, Inc. assert that the court erred in granting judgment against them in that Respondent failed to plead or prove that either of them was in possession of the property at issue for purposes of ejectment. On review of the record, this court determines that both points are without merit. A memorandum explaining the reasoning used by this court has been provided to the parties.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 839, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 683, 2008 WL 2095427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sd-investments-inc-v-boes-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack