Snelling v. SPRINGBOK ENTERPRISE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. SPRINGBOK ENTERPRISE

277 S.W.3d 888, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2009 WL 587809

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

DocketED 91999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 S.W.3d 888 (Snelling v. SPRINGBOK ENTERPRISE) 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

Snelling v. SPRINGBOK ENTERPRISE, 277 S.W.3d 888, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2009 WL 587809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ROY L. RICHTER, Presiding Judge.

Lonnie D. Snelling (“Snelling”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Springbok Enterprise (“Springbok”) dismissing Snelling’s Petition for lack of standing to sue. We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

Snelling’s Petition alleges that he is a leaseholder for property at 5039 Kensing-ton Avenue (“the property”). Springbok owns the adjacent property. Snelling alleges that people working on the roof of Springbok’s property entered his property, vandalized it, and removed wiring, sockets, and other debris. Snelling sued Springbok for trespass, conversion, nuisance, negligent hiring, and conspiracy. Springbok filed a motion to dismiss attacking Snelling’s interest in the property, arguing to the trial court that Snelling must prove his interest in the real estate in the pleadings. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the cause for lack of standing. Snelling appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

In his sole point on appeal, Snelling argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because he sufficiently pled that he had standing to bring the cause of action. We agree.

Snelling’s pleadings allege that he holds a lease to the property. Springbok’s assertion that Snelling must prove the allegations of his pleading prior to a hearing is incorrect. Williams v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 556, 559-560 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). A petition need not plead evi-dentiary facts showing entitlement to the relief sought. Id. at 560. Rather, it merely needs to plead ultimate facts demonstrating such an entitlement. Id. Based upon the ultimate facts pled, Snelling has an interest in the property. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of standing. Point granted.

III.CONCLUSION

The judgment is reversed and remanded.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ., Concur.

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

ROY L. RICHTER, Presiding Judge.

Lonnie D. Snelling (“Snelling”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Springbok Enterprise (“Springbok”) dismissing Snelling’s Petition for lack of standing to sue. We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

Snelling’s Petition alleges that he is a leaseholder for property at 5039 Kensing-ton Avenue (“the property”). Springbok owns the adjacent property. Snelling alleges that people working on the roof of Springbok’s property entered his property, vandalized it, and removed wiring, sockets, and other debris. Snelling sued Springbok for trespass, conversion, nuisance, negligent hiring, and conspiracy. Springbok filed a motion to dismiss attacking Snelling’s interest in the property, arguing to the trial court that Snelling must prove his interest in the real estate in the pleadings. Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the cause for lack of standing. Snelling appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

In his sole point on appeal, Snelling argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because he sufficiently pled that he had standing to bring the cause of action. We agree.

Snelling’s pleadings allege that he holds a lease to the property. Springbok’s assertion that Snelling must prove the allegations of his pleading prior to a hearing is incorrect. Williams v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 174 S.W.3d 556, 559-560 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). A petition need not plead evi-dentiary facts showing entitlement to the relief sought. Id. at 560. Rather, it merely needs to plead ultimate facts demonstrating such an entitlement. Id. Based upon the ultimate facts pled, Snelling has an interest in the property. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of standing. Point granted.

III.CONCLUSION

The judgment is reversed and remanded.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 S.W.3d 888, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2009 WL 587809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-springbok-enterprise-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

II. DISCUSSION

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack