Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Citation
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Parent Document
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1984-12-04
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
- Kiefer v. First Capitol Sports Center, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 483 (1984)
Full Text
1,030 charsIn the original unlawful detainer petition filed by Roy Thoele in the associate circuit court, the trustee David Kiefer was not named as a party plaintiff. Five months after suit was instituted, a motion was filed in the associate circuit court requesting that David T. Kiefer, trustee, be joined and substituted as a party plaintiff pursuant to Rule 52.06. This motion was granted. Appellant argues that this action was erroneous since Roy Thoele had no standing to initially file an action in unlaw*488ful detainer, and thus there could be no addition or substitution of party-plaintiffs in that action. This claim is without merit. The parties dispute whether David Kiefer was joined in addition to Roy Thoele as a party or whether there was a substitution of Kiefer for Thoele. However, upon examination of the record and actions of the parties, it appears that the trial court regarded both Thoele and Kiefer as parties and that pleadings filed by the plaintiffs and defendant mentioned Kiefer and Thoele as party-plaintiffs.