David Seymour v. Switzer Tenant LLC (2023)

Citation: David Seymour v. Switzer Tenant LLC (2023)
Parent Document: David Seymour v. Switzer Tenant LLC (2023)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2023-04-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10631592/david-seymour-v-switzer-tenant-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,525 chars

2
Switzer and Foutch filed a joint motion to amend the judgment to assess attorneys’ fees against
the tenants and Weigand filed its own motion requesting the court amend the judgment to assess
attorneys’ fees against the tenants. The trial court denied these motions. Switzer, Foutch, and
Weigand filed cross-appeals, appealing the trial court’s denial. We consolidated the appeals, but
Switzer, Foutch, and Weigand have since voluntarily dismissed their appeals.
3
Prior to the submission of the case, Switzer moved to strike portions of the tenants’ brief,
specifically its references to regulations promulgated by the City of Kansas City, Missouri
Department of Health as part of the Healthy Homes Rental Inspection Program Rules and
Regulations, asserting that these materials were not offered in evidence at the trial court and are
therefore not properly before this Court. Switzer’s motion to strike that portion of the tenants’
brief is granted. Documents not considered by the trial court and not made part of the record
cannot be introduced into the record on appeal. See DeGennaro v. Alosi, 389 S.W.3d 269, 275
n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). Moreover, we cannot take judicial notice of municipal regulations
which were not offered into evidence in the trial court. See Myers v. Moreno, 564 S.W.2d 83, 87
n.2 (Mo. App. 1978); Feely v. Birenbaum, 554 S.W.2d 432, 437 (Mo. App. 1977); Abbott v. Civ.
Serv. Comm’n of City of St. Louis, 546 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Mo. App. 1976). 5
I. Grant of Partial Summary Judgment

Other Sections in This Document (259)

Full Text