#Cardinal land investors llc trial

The original owner maintained that the restriction was reasonable and enforceable, but if the court were to find its terms unreasonable, then the original owner sought reformation as requested in its second-amended counterclaim.

In its motion, the original owner claimed that it and the original buyer understood the restrictive covenant was for Schnucks Markets' benefit.

#Cardinal land investors llc trial

Specifically, the original owner asked the trial court to reform the restrictive covenant to state that it was made for the benefit of Schnuck Markets, to limit its duration to 25 years, and to apply only so long as a Schnucks supermarket operates in Missouri within five miles of the property.Įach party filed a motion for summary judgment.

The original owner asked that language be added to provide that the restriction benefited Schnuck Markets, and to provide reasonable limitations on time and geographic area. In the event the court determined the restriction was unenforceable as drafted, the original owner sought reformation of the restrictive covenant. As an alternative strategy, the original owner filed a second-amended counterclaim, averring that it was the intention of both the original owner and the original buyer to include in the special warranty deed a valid, reasonable, and fully enforceable restriction on the use of the property for the benefit of Schnuck Markets. The original owner maintained that the restrictive covenant was enforceable as drafted. Shortly thereafter, the present owner filed a declaratory-judgment action against the original owner, seeking a declaration that the restrictive covenant is invalid as a matter of law, and therefore, unenforceable. 1 The original buyer conveyed the property to another purchaser in 2004, and the present owner then bought the property in 2005 with the restrictive covenant in place. The deed, in conformance with the sales agreement for the property, contained a restrictive covenant, which provided that no full-line grocery store, supermarket, or drug store could operate on the property. (the original buyer) via a special warranty deed. In 1999, the original owner entered an agreement to sell the property, and conveyed the property to Chariton Square Shopping Center, L.L.C. No supermarket has operated on the property since the Schnucks store closed although two other Schnucks supermarkets currently operate within three miles of the property.

operated a supermarket from 1968 to about 1991. The property contains a building where Schnuck Markets, Inc. We reverse and remand because the original owner has not established its entitlement to reformation of the restrictive covenant as a matter of law. The present owner appeals the summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. The trial court granted the original owner's motion, reformed the restrictive covenant, and denied the present owner's motion. Each party filed a motion for summary judgment. The original owner responded, maintaining that the covenant was enforceable, or in the alternative should be reformed. The present owner filed a declaratory-judgment action against the original owner, seeking a declaration that the restrictive covenant the original owner inserted in a special warranty deed is invalid as a matter of law, and therefore, unenforceable. originally owned the property and inserted a restrictive covenant governing the property's use when it transferred the property. Louis, MO, for respondent.Ĭardinal Partners, LLC presently owns the Chariton Square Shopping Center in the City of St. DESCO INVESTMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals,Eastern District,Division Three.ĬARDINAL PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant, v.