2026-09-12 · Missouri · Courts

What happened. A Missouri city sought a declaration that a sewer services agreement had been terminated by the developer LLCs' breach. Those LLCs had deeded the subdivision's common areas to the community association, and the association moved to intervene. A default judgment was entered and then set aside. On 20 February 2026 the Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the setting aside.¹

The case is City of Osage Beach v. Duenke Real Estate Holdings, LLC; Tan-Tar-A Estates, LLC; and Tan-Tar-A Estates Community Association, Inc., No. SD39033, before Judges Becky J. West, Jeffrey W. Bates and Jack A. L. Goodman.

What the City was seeking

“a declaration that a contract between the aforementioned parties, titled the 2008 Extension and Amendments to the Tan-Tar-A Estates Sewer Services Agreement … is terminated due to the LLCs' breach thereof”

The opinion's factual recitation records the association's route into the case:

“the LLCs … deeded the Estates' common areas to the Association”

“the Association moved to intervene in the lawsuit”

The stakes described in the record include “prompt and easy access to the sanitary sewer system” and the observation that the City “would have to negotiate individually with hundreds of lot owners.”

The default-judgment standard

A default judgment was entered and the motion to set it aside was filed approximately two weeks after entry. The Court applied Missouri's settled framework: courts favour setting aside default judgments, and appellate courts are more likely to affirm an order granting such relief than one denying it. The two elements are good cause — a mental state less than recklessness, which can include delay in a good-faith attempt to secure counsel — and a meritorious defence, which can be any substantive matter.

The appellant failed to challenge one of the defences the trial court had found meritorious, which left that element supported. Affirmed.

A caution about the quotations

The sentences quoted above are from the opinion's fact section, not statements of law. We are reproducing them to establish the association's position in the case and not presenting any of them as the court's holding.

1. City of Osage Beach v. Duenke Real Estate Holdings, LLC, No. SD39033 (Mo. App. S.D. Feb. 20, 2026) — opinion text ↩
2. State ex rel. City of Osage Beach v. Koeppen, No. SD38855 (Mo. App. S.D. Sept. 25, 2025) — the companion inverse-condemnation decision ↩
3. The Missouri Bar, hand-down summaries, week of Feb. 20–26, 2026 (identification only) ↩