Citing deficiencies, court dismisses appeal involving Airbnb rental

Briefing deficiencies led the Court of Appeals Western District to dismiss what appears to be its first case involving the use of home-sharing platform Airbnb.

The July 9 ruling came in the appeal of Carlos Guerra, who leased two apartment units in the Locarno Apartments building, across from the Country Club Plaza in Kansas City. The building is owned by Locarno Partners LP.

According to the opinion, written by Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer, the dispute began when a property manager working for Locarno discovered an ad for a unit in the building on Craigslist which was not placed by Locarno.

When the manager investigated further, she discovered that Guerra was not occupying either of his two leased units and was subleasing them through Airbnb, which enables people to rent out their properties or spare rooms to guests.

Locarno ordered the unauthorized occupants to vacate the units, which they did.

Guerra sued Locarno in 2017 for intentional interference with a contract and one count of breach of contract. He claimed that Locarno deprived him of money he would have earned from subleasing the units and breached its contract by cancelling his sublease of one unit and not allowing him to rent out the other unit.

Locarno countersued, alleging Guerra defaulted on his leases and owed rent and additional damages for breaching his lease agreements.

Jackson County Judge Jennifer M. Phillips heard the case in a bench trial in April 2018. In May 2018, she issued a judgment against Guerra on his claims and in favor of Locarno on its counterclaims. She additionally denied Guerra’s motion for a new trial, which he appealed.

The three-judge panel that heard the case, which also included Judges Thomas N. Chapman and Cynthia L. Martin, granted Locarno’s motion to dismiss the appeal because of briefing violations.

Pfeiffer said that Guerra’s initial brief was stricken for “numerous briefing deficiencies” — including the point on which Guerra relied and in the argument section of the brief. He said the amended brief “is no better.”

For example, Pfeiffer said, the sole point on appeal stated “the court erred in not finding for appellants [sic] that the leases signed by appellant were breached by appellant.”

“Aside from being somewhat nonsensical, this point relied on fails to identify ‘wherein and why’ the circuit court allegedly erred,” Pfeiffer said, noting that Guerra failed to state the legal reasons for his claim of reversible error.

Additionally, while the case involves Phillips’ interpretation and application of lease agreements, Pfeiffer said Guerra’s briefs do not include any mention of the terms of those agreements.

“In fact, Guerra’s entire statement of facts is one paragraph with six sentences and, while it does not provide any details of the lease agreement, the facts provided are not confined to those supporting the circuit court’s judgment and, instead, only provide Guerra’s argument of how certain evidence supported the position he was apparently attempting to make to the circuit court,” he said.

In a footnote, Pfeiffer said numerous provisions in Guerra’s leases are unfavorable to his arguments. One example: The lease agreements prohibit subleases without Locarno’s written approval, he said.

“Given these contractual obligations and an absence of any facts below evidencing such written modifications or waivers to the lease agreements, we find it no coincidence that Guerra ignores these provisions in his appellate briefing to this court,” Pfeiffer said. “Intentionally ignoring facts favorable to the judgment is, however, fatal to an appellant’s appeal — as explained more fully in our ruling today.”

Dale Wiley, of Crane, represented Guerra. James R. Schurman of Lenexa represented the property management company. Neither could be reached for comment.

The case is Guerra v. Locarno Partners LP, WD81885.