Behrick v. Konert Farms Homeowners' Ass'n
Decision Date | 12 May 2020 |
Docket Number | No. ED 108092,ED 108092 |
Citation | 601 S.W.3d 567 |
Parties | Janet BEHRICK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. KONERT FARMS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Drey A. Cooley, Andrew W. Blackwell, 8182 Maryland Ave., 15th Floor, Clayton, MO 63105, For Plaintiff/Appellant.
Anthony J. Soukenik, Philip C. Graham, Jason C. Schmidt, Katrina L. Smeltzer, 600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Defendant/Respondent.
Janet Behrick (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Konert Farms Homeowners’ Association (HOA) and denying Appellant's motion for summary judgment on Appellant's claims against the HOA for their failure to perform certain duties she alleges are owed under the Declaration of Trust, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction of Konert Farms (Declaration). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant filed a claim against the HOA for failing to repair and maintain a limestone rock wall in her backyard. Both Appellant and Respondent filed motions for summary judgment, along with exhibits and memoranda of law in support of their respective motions. The trial court held a hearing on the motions and both sides presented evidence. The uncontroverted material facts established the following:
Konert Farms is a subdivision of single-family homes located in Jefferson County, Missouri. Appellant owns a home on Lot 27 of the subdivision. The subdivision was developed by Laredo Development Co., LLC (Laredo). The Declaration and a plat depicting the layout plan for the subdivision (Plat) were recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Jefferson County, Missouri, in 2006. The HOA's rights and obligations with regard to the subdivision are governed by the Declaration and the incorporated Plat. The Plat shows a scored line running through the backyards of several lots in the subdivision, including Lot 27, labeled "30’ W. Ret. Wall Esmt." According to the HOA, this scored line indicates an easement for the placement and maintenance of a retaining wall Laredo had planned to install where indicated on the Plat. In addition to the Plat, Laredo also produced a site plan (site plan) that depicted Lot 27 and the surrounding area. The site plan shows two lines running parallel through the back of Lot 27 and adjacent lots, one labeled "Rock Wall," and one towards the rear of the lots labeled "Retaining Wall."
In the course of developing the subdivision, the ground in the rear of Lot 27 and adjacent lots was excavated. The excavation cut into limestone bedrock underneath the soil, revealing a rock wall (limestone rock wall), which runs through the rear of Lot 27 and adjacent lots approximately where the site plan shows a "Rock Wall." The limestone rock wall is a sheer and unadorned rock face composed of native limestone bedrock. However, unlike the site plan's depiction, no retaining wall was built behind the limestone rock wall.
After the initial development of the subdivision, the HOA installed a wire mesh over the limestone rock wall to mitigate crumbling and falling rocks. However, the netting began to fail, allowing rock debris to fall into the backyards of Lot 27 and adjacent properties. The HOA removed the failed netting and rock debris but did not replace the netting or install any new measures to prevent crumbling rock debris from the limestone rock wall.
Appellant filed suit against the HOA, alleging the Declaration gives rise to a duty to repair and maintain the limestone rock wall in the rear of Lot 27. The relevant provisions of the Declaration are as follows:
(all emphasis added).
Appellant claimed the language in the Declaration directing the HOA to repair, maintain, and replace retaining walls and fences installed by the Declarant in the subdivision meant the HOA is obligated to repair and maintain the limestone rock wall in her backyard. The HOA maintained that the plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chastain v. United Fire & Cas. Co.
...policy when selecting and applying the appropriate dictionary definition of the relevant terms. Behrick v. Konert Farms Homeowners’ Ass'n , 601 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Mo. App. 2020). The policy does not define "physical evidence," so, we look to the dictionary to determine the ordinary meaning of......
-
Shade-Schaefer v. City of Eureka
... ... resorting to canons of construction. Behrick v. Konert ... Farms Homeowners' Ass'n , 601 S.W.3d ... ...
-
Shade-Schaefer v. City of Eureka
...are unambiguous, we will enforce the contract as written without resorting to canons of construction. Behrick v. Konert Farms Homeowners' Ass'n, 601 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). While the contract unambiguously mandated that PTT contact Eureka five days before the work was to begin......
-
Equity Fin. Res., Inc. v. Overman
...and common sense meaning," and may refer to a dictionary to supply that commonly understood meaning. Behrick v. Konert Farms Homeowners’ Ass'n , 601 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also , e.g. , TCN Invs., LLC v. Superior Detail , 5......