In Rep. Trustees Indian Springs v. Greeves, No. ED 91057.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Glenn A. Norton
• Citation: 277 S.W.3d 793
• Parties: IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES FOR the INDIAN SPRINGS OWNERS Association, Appellant, v. Todd and Deanna GREEVES, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 10 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. ED 91057.

277 S.W.3d 793 IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES FOR the INDIAN SPRINGS OWNERS Association, Appellant,
v.
Todd and Deanna GREEVES, Respondents. No. ED 91057. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One. February 10, 2009.

[277 S.W.3d 795]

Martin L. Daesch, Katherine M. Massa, Saint Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Todd E. Greeves, Deanna Greeve, O'Fallon, pro se.

OPINION

GLENN A. NORTON, Judge.

The Indian Springs Owners Association ("the Association"), an unincorporated property owners association for the Indian Springs Subdivision,¹ appeals from the judgment dismissing its petition against Todd and Deanna Greeves ("Homeowners") on the grounds that the Association did not have standing.² The Association's two-count petition alleged that Homeowners violated the Indian Springs Subdivision's Indenture and Covenants and Restrictions ("the Indenture") by erecting a shed on their property without seeking or obtaining the Subdivision Trustees' approval. In Count I, the Association sought an injunction against Homeowners that would require them to remove the shed and submit their plan to erect a shed to the Trustees for review. In Count II, the Association requested an award of attorney's fees. The trial court found that the Association did not have standing because its representative parties, the Trustees, were in violation of the Indenture due to their failure to hold trustee elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007. We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

The Indenture has regulated the relationships of homeowners in the Indian Springs Subdivision since 1997. It provides that "[e]ach person or entity who is a record owner in fee of any lot or living unit

277 S.W.3d 796

in Indian Springs shall be a member of the Association." The purpose of the Association and the Indenture is:

[T]o create a means of cooperation among lot and homeowners in [Indian Springs] . . . for the establishment of a . . . common interest . . .; to ensure the attractiveness of the development and to preserve, protect and enhance the values and amenities of said properties by the adoption of a . . . set of restrictions to govern said property. . . .

The Association's Board of Trustees consists of three "duly elected trustees of Indian Springs authorized to conduct business of the Association in accordance with [the Indenture]." The Indenture requires that trustee elections be held annually.

The Indenture also establishes covenants, conditions, and restrictions which apply to all homes in Indian Springs. One restriction in the Indenture provides in relevant part that:

No building . . . or other structure shall be . . . erected . . . upon any lot . . . until the plans and specific actions showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the trustees.

The Indenture also states:

The Trustees, or the owner of any lot subject to this Indenture, shall have the right to enforce, by and proceeding [sic] at law or in equity, any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and provisions hereof, either to restrain or enjoin a violation or threatened violation or to recover damages and the prevailing party in either such action shall recover attorney's fees and court costs.

In April 2007, the Association filed a two-count petition against Homeowners, alleging they violated the Indenture by erecting a shed on their property without seeking or obtaining the Trustees' approval. In Count I, the Association sought an injunction against Homeowners that would require them to remove the shed and submit their plan to erect a shed to the Trustees for review. In Count II, the Association requested an award of attorney's fees. Homeowners did not file a motion or pleading in response to the Association's petition.

The trial court held a bench trial in December 2007. The Association presented evidence concerning Homeowners' alleged violation of the Indenture. Robert King, the trustee representing the Association at trial, testified that Homeowners erected a shed on their property without seeking or obtaining the Trustees' approval.

Homeowners presented evidence regarding the Trustees' failure to hold annual elections. King testified that the Association had not held an annual election of trustees since 2004. Homeowners argued that the Association's failure to hold annual trustee elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007 violated the Indenture, and therefore, the Trustees were not validly in office and did not have authority to bring suit on behalf of the Association. The Association objected to Homeowners' argument on the grounds that it was not raised in a motion or responsive pleading. In overruling the Association's objection, the court found that, "a party can raise standing at any time, and that's what I believe . . . the nature of th[e] defense is. . . ." At the close of all the evidence, the trial court stated that although Homeowners were in violation of the Indenture on the date of the trial, it had to determine whether the Trustees' failure to follow the Indenture regarding elections "takes away the authority of the acting trustees" to bring suit.

277 S.W.3d 797

Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment finding that it was not reaching the issue of whether Homeowners were in violation of the Indenture because it was dismissing the Association's petition on the grounds that the Association did not have standing. The court found that the Association did not have standing because its representative parties, the Trustees, were in violation of the Indenture due to their failure to hold trustee elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007. The Association appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Our review of a court-tried case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Id. Whether a party has standing is a question of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Stewart v. Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis, 120 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Mo.App. E.D.2003).

B. The Trial Court Erred in Dismissing the Association's Petition against Homeowners on the Grounds that the Association did not have Standing

In its sole point on appeal, the Association asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing its petition against Homeowners on the grounds that the Association did not have standing. The Association argues that the legal issue presented by Homeowners at trial and decided by the trial court was not whether the Association had standing, but whether the Trustees, as representative parties of the Association, had the capacity or authority to sue Homeowners. The Association further argues that Homeowners waived any challenge to the Trustees' capacity or authority to sue by failing to raise this issue in a motion or responsive pleading. Finally, the Association maintains that it had standing to sue Homeowners.

1. Capacity to Sue versus Standing to Sue

The issue of capacity to sue may be confused with the issue of standing to sue. See City of Wellston v. SBC Communications, Inc., 203 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Mo. banc 2006) (finding that the trial court erred in finding that a party had no standing to sue because the issue was whether the party had...