Bellinger v. Lindsey
480 S.W.3d 345
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Bellinger, majority owner of lots in Highland Trails subdivision, sued neighbors Keith and Olivia Lindsey seeking declaratory relief, injunctions, abatement of nuisances, removal of encroachments, and damages based on alleged violations of subdivision restrictive covenants and separate torts (trespass, conversion, nuisance, damage to lake/dam).
- The Lindseys denied most claims, counterclaimed for quantum meruit, and conceded some covenant violations and having a burn pile; they did not dispute that two sheds were located on Bellinger’s property.
- At bench trial Bellinger introduced photographs and survey evidence alleging multiple encroachments (sheds, chicken coop, pig enclosure, vehicles, fuel tank) and asserted >$150,000 in damage to lake and dam; Lindseys denied lake/dam damage and removed some items.
- The trial court concluded the restrictive covenants were invalid and unenforceable because they lacked an accurate legal description and a plat, and denied Bellinger’s claims and the Lindseys’ quantum meruit counterclaim.
- The trial court did not expressly resolve Bellinger’s nuisance, trespass, conversion, and encroachment claims based on structures placed on Bellinger’s own lots; its order and denial of rehearing referenced belief-based use of common areas but did not make findings about trespass to Bellinger’s property.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment because the trial court failed to dispose of all claims and did not certify a partial final judgment under Rule 74.01(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are the restrictive covenants valid and enforceable? | Covenants govern use and restrict Lindseys’ conduct; enforce injunction/damages. | Covenants must be invalidated if they lack accurate legal description/plat. | Trial court found covenants invalid for lacking accurate description/plat; appellate court accepted that disposition but did not reach merits due to finality issue. |
| 2. Was there trespass/conversion by Lindseys onto Bellinger’s lots? | Survey and photos show structures and items on Bellinger’s property; seeks damages and removal. | Lindseys argued belief in right to use common areas and removed some items; disputed lake/dam damage. | Trial court did not make findings resolving trespass/ conversion to Bellinger’s property; appellate court found unresolved issues preclude appeal. |
| 3. Were nuisances (burn pile, debris) established requiring abatement? | Burn pile with asbestos/plastic is nuisance needing abatement and damages. | Lindseys acknowledged burn pile but contested harm/damages. | Trial court did not decide nuisance claims as to Bellinger’s property; appellate court held judgment was not final. |
| 4. Is the appeal reviewable absent a final judgment or Rule 74.01(b) certification? | Bellinger appealed the adverse judgment denying relief. | Lindseys contended judgment was final as to covenants and damages. | Appellate court dismissed appeal for lack of final, appealable judgment because some claims remained undecided and no Rule 74.01(b) certification was made. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooling v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 446 S.W.3d 283 (Mo. App. 2014) (court must ensure appellate jurisdiction and finality before considering merits)
- Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc 2011) (a judgment resolving fewer than all claims is not final; distinct claims requiring different facts/law must be separately addressed)
- Blackwell v. CSF Properties 2 LLC, 443 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. App. 2014) (discusses Rule 74.01(b) partial final judgment certification requirement)
- First Community Credit Union v. Levison, 395 S.W.3d 571 (Mo. App. 2013) (when one claim implicitly disposes of others, a judgment may be final—but not applicable where claims require different proofs)
- Comm. for Educ. Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1994) (different claims requiring distinct proofs must be addressed separately)
- Grossman v. St. John, 323 S.W.3d 831 (Mo. App. 2010) (trespass liability exists even if committed in good faith; proof of trespass allows nominal damages absent proof of actual damages)