Relaxation, Inc. v. RIS, Inc., 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 54

In 1983, a parking lot easement (Dedication) was formed between predecessors and recorded in Miller County for shared customer parking with restrictions including keeping a 25-foot driveway open.
In 1997, an Amendment limited use to ingress/egress and customer/employee parking for buildings largely abutting the lots, with numerous restrictions on storage and other uses.
RIS began construction on a new shopping center around July 2011, altering/destroying portions of the lots, barricading access, storing material, and placing utilities without Relaxation's permission.
Relaxation sought emergency relief in October 2011, leading to TROs, preliminary injunctions, and repeated contempt allegations against RIS over the next two years.
December 30, 2011 TRO required RIS to restore and clear the parking areas; subsequent TROs and orders continued through March 2012, culminating in a March 29, 2012 hearing and an April 13, 2012 Findings and a Preliminary Injunction finding RIS in contempt.
The City of Lake Ozark intervened in 2012–2013 in condemnation proceedings; the trial court entered multiple contempt judgments and ordered RIS to pay fees; Relaxation sought further relief and RIS pursued stays/new trials; RIS eventually appealed after a stay was lifted in 2014, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely notice of appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the contempt order final and appealable?	Relaxation: order is final due to enforcement mechanisms.	RIS: order may not be final until enforcement is complete.	Appealability hinges on enforcement; order is final once enforced.
Was RIS's notice of appeal timely?	RIS argues timely under Rule 81.04(a).	RIS contends delay was excused by ongoing proceedings.	Notice was untimely; not within ten days after enforcement (May 9, 2013 target date; filed August 28, 2013).

Carothers v. Carothers, 337 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. banc 2011) (civil contempt finality tied to enforcement; appealability after enforcement)
Crow v. Crow, 103 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. banc 2003) (enforcement method governs finality of contempt order (imprisonment or fines))
Emmons v. Emmons, 310 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (contempt and irreparable harm considerations in injunctive relief)
Spicer v. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (sua sponte jurisdiction duty to assess finality of orders)
Thorp v. Thorp, 390 S.W.3d 871 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (timeliness of notices in interlocutory context; Rule 81.04(a) application)
Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for reviewing in civil cases; preference for favorable view of trial court findings)