Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Relaxation, Inc. v. RIS, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division

January 20, 2015

RELAXATION, INC., Respondent,
v.
RIS, INC., Appellant

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Miller County, Missouri. The Honorable William R. Hass, Judge.

Matthew Phillip Hamner, Camdenton, MO, for respondent.

Melissa A. Hoag Sherman, Overland Park, KS, for appellant.

Gary D. Witt, Judge. All concur.

OPINION

Gary D. Witt, Judge.

Page 744

This action arises from a dispute over rights in a parking lot easement that is shared between Appellant RIS, Inc. (" RIS" ), and Respondent Relaxation, Inc. (" Relaxation" ). RIS appeals from a Judgment and Third Order of Contempt in the Circuit Court of Miller County. Because we do not have jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

Factual and Procedural History[1]

In 1983, a Parking Lot Dedication (" Dedication" or " easement" ) was formed between the predecessors in interest of the

Page 745

parties and was recorded in Miller County. RIS owns property that is adjacent to property owned by Relaxation. Both parties' tracts are commercial. Pursuant to the Dedication, the parties dedicated the two common parking lots between their properties for use as common customer parking. There are various restrictions about the maintenance and the usage of the lots, including a requirement that an existing twenty-five foot wide driveway shall always remain open.

In 1997, an amendment to the Dedication (" Amendment" ) was executed and recorded in the county. It states that the lots were to be used solely for ingress and egress and for parking by customers, employees, and invitees of the businesses operating from a building that has at least seventy-five percent of its frontage abutting the common customer parking lots. The Amendment additionally placed numerous restrictions on the lots regarding the storage of any vehicles, fixtures, and any other property.

RIS, with Gary Prewitt (" Prewitt" ) as the principal, began construction on a new shopping center on its property on or around July 2011. The development includes several " big box" stores as future tenants, including Menard's, Kohl's, and CVS. As part of its construction, RIS altered or destroyed portions of the two parking areas, barricaded and restricted access to portions of the parking areas, stored construction vehicles, supplies, and other equipment on the areas, destroyed or altered the existing driveway, and ran power lines and other utilities across the areas without Relaxation's permission.

Michael Craig (" Craig" ) is a principal of Relaxation.[2] Craig discovered the excavation in August 2011 and contacted an attorney who tried to enter into an agreement with RIS, but that attorney died unexpectedly. Craig hired new counsel, and on October 6, 2011, Relaxation filed a petition against RIS, seeking a temporary restraining order (" TRO" ), a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and damages.

From that point on, RIS and Relaxation engaged in extensive litigation. By way of overview, over the next two years, the trial court (at least four separate trial judges have been assigned to this case) issued numerous TROs and contempt orders against RIS, all of which RIS basically ignored. On April 13, 2012, the court issued a preliminary injunction against RIS. Key to this appeal, after the preliminary injunction, the trial court issued two additional orders of contempt against RIS, and then issued two stays.

On October 20, 2011, the trial court, Hon. Stanley Moore, ordered the parties in a docket entry to agree on a location for the common parking area and ordered RIS to open the driveway off of the parking lot and restore the parking area to its agreed dimensions and grade within ten days. The court stated that it would issue a TRO if those conditions were not met.

The next day, Relaxation contacted RIS, stating that a surveyor would mark the corners of the common parking area pursuant to the legal descriptions in the Dedication and stated that if RIS had any disagreement with the boundaries, it should contact Relaxation's counsel. The surveyor marked the corners on the ground that day. RIS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.