Armistead v. a.L.W. Group, ED79186

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation60 S.W.3d 25
PartiesRobert Armistead, Jr., Appellant, v. A.L.W. Group, A Limited Partnership, Mark A. Witt, Steven L. Witt and Larry D. Witt, Respondent. ED79186 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Docket NumberED79186
Decision Date09 October 2001

Robert Armistead, Jr., Appellant,
v.
A.L.W. Group, A Limited Partnership, Mark A. Witt, Steven L. Witt and Larry D. Witt, Respondent.

ED79186

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

10/09/2001


Appeal From: Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Jeff W. Schaeperkoetter

Counsel for Appellant: Cynthia S. Holmes

Counsel for Respondent: Timothy J. Melenbrink

Opinion Summary:

Robert G. Armistead, Jr., appeals the court's judgment dismissing his petition for dissolution of partnership, accounting, breach of contract and punitive damages against the A.L.W. Group and the individual members of the partnership (collectively, "A.L.W."). The court determined that the petition was time-barred because the five-year statute of limitations set forth section 516.120.1 RSMo 2000 applied instead of the ten-year statute set forth in section 516.110.1.

Division Three holds: (1) Armistead's claims for breach of contract and punitive damages are governed by the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in section 516.110.1; (2) Armistead's claims for dissolution of the partnership and an accounting are governed by section 516.110.1; (3) Armistead's third point on appeal is moot given the disposition of Points I and II.

Gaertner, Sr., J., and Ahrens. J., concur.

Richard B. Teitelman, Judge

Robert G. Armistead, Jr., ("Armistead") appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Franklin County dismissing his petition for dissolution of partnership, accounting, breach of contract and punitive damages against the A.L.W. Group and the individual members of the partnership (collectively, "A.L.W."). The trial court determined that the petition was time-barred because the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Section 516.120.1 RSMo (2000)(FN1) applied instead of the ten-year statute set forth in Section 516.110.1. We reverse and remand. Factual and Procedural Background

On June 3, 1990, Armistead and several others entered into a limited partnership agreement (the "Agreement") to operate a restaurant and bar in Franklin County, Missouri. Concerned that he was being improperly excluded from the business, Armistead notified A.L.W. of his withdrawal from the partnership on September 20, 1991.

The Agreement provided that upon the withdrawal of a partner, the partnership had two options. First, the remaining partners could elect to purchase the interest of the withdrawing partner. The Agreement provided a means of calculating the value of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • City of Carthage v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 19-05001-CV-SW-WBG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • May 13, 2022
    ...not apply because there was “no formal or written instrument” for which the party sought specific performance); Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp., 60 S.W.3d 25, 26-27 (Mo.Ct.App. 2001) (finding the ten-year statute of limitations applied because the agreement was a “written contract” containing “a p......
  • Eckel v. Eckel, WD 80113
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 27, 2018
    ...of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained." Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp. , 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).540 S.W.3d 483AnalysisThe Eckel Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in dismissing Count I (Quiet Title) because the ......
  • Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., ED 109959
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 10, 2022
    ...statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained.'" Eckel, 540 S.W.3d at 482 (quoting Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp, 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)); Dean, 477 S.W.3d at 203 (internal citation omitted). Discussion I. Point One-Dismissed for Rule 84.04 Deficiencies Prelim......
  • Baker v. Century Fin. Grp., Inc., WD 80813
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 24, 2018
    ...of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained." Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp. , 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). In the context of summary judgment, we will affirm if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • City of Carthage v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 19-05001-CV-SW-WBG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • May 13, 2022
    ...not apply because there was “no formal or written instrument” for which the party sought specific performance); Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp., 60 S.W.3d 25, 26-27 (Mo.Ct.App. 2001) (finding the ten-year statute of limitations applied because the agreement was a “written contract” containing “a p......
  • Eckel v. Eckel, WD 80113
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 27, 2018
    ...of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained." Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp. , 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).540 S.W.3d 483AnalysisThe Eckel Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in dismissing Count I (Quiet Title) because the ......
  • Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., ED 109959
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 10, 2022
    ...statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained.'" Eckel, 540 S.W.3d at 482 (quoting Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp, 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)); Dean, 477 S.W.3d at 203 (internal citation omitted). Discussion I. Point One-Dismissed for Rule 84.04 Deficiencies Prelim......
  • Baker v. Century Fin. Grp., Inc., WD 80813
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 24, 2018
    ...of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the motion to dismiss is properly sustained." Armistead v. A.L.W. Grp. , 60 S.W.3d 25, 26 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). In the context of summary judgment, we will affirm if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT