Platonov v. The Barn, L.P., No. ED 88649.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Glenn A. Norton |
| Citation | 226 S.W.3d 238 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 88649. |
| Parties | Viacheslav PLATONOV, Appellant, v. THE BARN, L.P. and Paul Londe Revocable Trust, Respondents. |
v.
THE BARN, L.P. and Paul Londe Revocable Trust, Respondents.
[226 S.W.3d 239]
Richard S. Bender, David G. Bender, Clayton, MO, for respondents.
Alexander Koubatov, Saint Louis, MO, for appellant.
GLENN A. NORTON, Presiding Judge.
Viacheslav Platonov appeals the judgment dismissing his claim for breach of contract against The Barn, LP ("The Barn"). We reverse and remand.
Lessor The Barn at Lucerne, LP ("The Barn at Lucerne")1 and Lessee Zhivago's, LLC entered into a lease in 1998 for Zhivago's to operate a restaurant on The Barn at Lucerne's property. The lease ran until May 31, 2003. Chapter 38 of the lease granted Platonov or his heirs the option to purchase a 50% interest in the entity owning the property after July 1, 2000, and before July 1, 2001.
On June 20, 2001, Platonov's attorney sent a letter to The Barn at Lucerne declaring that Platonov was exercising the option to purchase. For reasons not found in the record, the purchase never happened. On June 23, 2006, Platonov filed suit for breach of contract against The Barn and the Paul Londe Revocable Trust ("Trust"), which appear to be successors in interest to the property from The Barn at Lucerne. Platonov attached to his petition the lease, with the option language, and the letter from his attorney exercising the option.
The Barn and the Trust filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the parties had entered into a "First Amendment to Lease" on December 31, 2003. This document purportedly deletes chapter 38 of the earlier lease agreement. The Barn quoted the document in its motion. The Barn also apparently presented the document to the court at the motion hearing. Both parties admitted in their statements of facts that the Barn presented the document to the court, but no record of this hearing was made. The Barn alleges that Zhivago's did not object to the court viewing the document. It is not clear whether the trial court entered the document into evidence, but The Barn did submit it in a supplemental legal file to this Court.
After the hearing, the court granted The Barn's motion to dismiss. The court found that the First Amendment to Lease superseded contrary provisions of the original lease. Platonov appeals.
Platonov argues that the court erred when it considered matters outside the
pleadings and thereby treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment without notice to the parties and an opportunity to present all pertinent materials.
A. Standard of Review
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Vogt v. Emmons, 158 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Mo.App. E.D.20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., No. ED 90736.
...publicly and falsely attributed a website to Meyerkord. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Platonov v. The Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). A motion to dismiss is solely a test of the adequacy of the petition. Id. We accept as true all of the plaintiff's......
-
White v. Bowman, No. SD 29631.
...a motion to dismiss is not a pleading, Raster v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 280 S.W.3d 120 (Mo.App.2009), Platonov v. The Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App.2007), we infer that suggestions directed to such a motion are, similarly, not pleadings. Accordingly, the addendum was not before ......
-
Underwood v. Kahala, LLC, No. SD 35267
...2010) (emphasis added).7 Rule 55.27(a) is also not discretionary; it is "mandatory " and must be followed. Platonov v. The Barn, L.P. , 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (emphasis added). "[T]he trial court must compel adherence to the mandatory dictates" of Rules 55.27(a) and 74.04.......
-
Cox v. Ripley County, No. 27808.
...petition. This appeal followed. Our review of a grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo. Platonov v. The 233 S.W.3d 227 Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). We assume that all the plaintiff's averments in the petition are true and grant the plaintiff all reasonable inferences......
-
Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., No. ED 90736.
...publicly and falsely attributed a website to Meyerkord. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Platonov v. The Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). A motion to dismiss is solely a test of the adequacy of the petition. Id. We accept as true all of the plaintiff's......
-
White v. Bowman, No. SD 29631.
...a motion to dismiss is not a pleading, Raster v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 280 S.W.3d 120 (Mo.App.2009), Platonov v. The Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App.2007), we infer that suggestions directed to such a motion are, similarly, not pleadings. Accordingly, the addendum was not before ......
-
Underwood v. Kahala, LLC, No. SD 35267
...added).7 Rule 55.27(a) is also not discretionary; it is "mandatory " and must be followed. Platonov v. The Barn, L.P. , 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (emphasis added). "[T]he trial court must compel adherence to the mandatory dictates" of Rules 55.27(a) and 74......
-
Cox v. Ripley County, No. 27808.
...petition. This appeal followed. Our review of a grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo. Platonov v. The 233 S.W.3d 227 Barn, L.P., 226 S.W.3d 238, 240 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). We assume that all the plaintiff's averments in the petition are true and grant the plaintiff all reasonable inferences......