Section 512

Citation: Section 512
Parent Document: Yes Chancellor Farms, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Vicki Merkel (2023)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2023-05-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10629889/yes-chancellor-farms-llc-plain... ↗

Full Text

1,067 chars

4
 Respondent moved to dismiss Appellant’s appeal for mootness. Respondent argues Appellants are “collaterally
estopped” from appealing the trial court’s judgment because judgment was entered in a separate unlawful detainer
action against all Appellants except Wendy Richardson, and Respondent made a claim against the Estate of Vicki
Merkel in a probate action that relied upon judgments in both the rent and possession action underlying this appeal
and the unlawful detainer action. We deny the motion for several reasons. Among them, Respondent has not
explained whether or how its invocation of “collateral estoppel” applies on appeal. Compare Miller v. Hubert, 804
S.W.2d 819, 820 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (collateral estoppel), with City of O'Fallon v. CenturyLink, Inc., 491 S.W.3d
276, 283–84 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (mootness of an appeal). Assuming Respondent’s invocation of collateral
estoppel could apply on appeal, Respondent did not first timely plead it in its petition. See Piatt v. Indiana
Lumbermen’s Mut. Ins. Co., 461 S.W.3d 788, 795-96 (Mo. banc 2015).

Other Sections in This Document (296)

Full Text