Opinion
No. ED 110267
12-27-2022
Joseph SCHILLI, Appellant, v. C&R PROPERTIES, et al., Respondents.
FOR APPELLANT: Clinton B. Roberts, Roberts & Roberts, L.L.C., 16 West Columbia Street, PO Box 400, Farmington, Missouri 63640. FOR RESPONDENT: Bradley J. Labruyere, Bradshaw, Steele, Cochrane, Berens & Billmeyer, L.C., 3113 Independence Street, PO Box 1300, Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63702.
FOR APPELLANT: Clinton B. Roberts, Roberts & Roberts, L.L.C., 16 West Columbia Street, PO Box 400, Farmington, Missouri 63640.
FOR RESPONDENT: Bradley J. Labruyere, Bradshaw, Steele, Cochrane, Berens & Billmeyer, L.C., 3113 Independence Street, PO Box 1300, Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63702.
Before James M. Dowd, P.J., Kelly C. Broniec, J. and Christopher K. Limbaugh, Sp. J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM Joseph Schilli ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment lifting a preliminary injunction to stop the sale of real estate owned by C&R Properties of Ozora, LLC ("C&R Properties" or "the LLC") to KRQ Farms, LLC ("KRQ"), and entering a final judgment on behalf of Respondents. Appellant asserts three points on appeal. In his first point, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in its construction of § 347.079 RSMo because the court found that all lawful acts were in the "usual course of business." In his second point, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in making findings of fact not supported by any evidence in the record. In his third point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to disqualify opposing counsel for various reasons, including the fact that C&R Properties hired counsel without holding a formal meeting and without unanimous vote, and that counsel would be representing clients with conflicting interests.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no reversible error occurred. We hold that, although the trial court erred in its definition of "usual course of business," the trial court did not err in finding the sale of the land requires only a majority vote because there was insufficient evidence for the trial court to find a unanimous vote was required. Further, we hold the facts necessary to the judgment were supported by the evidence adduced. Finally, we hold the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to disqualify opposing counsel because the record was insufficient to support the motion.
A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court under Rule 84.16(b).