This Bulletin summary and updates are based only on the public court filing and is not an official communication from the City. The docket should be checked for any later filings or changes in case status. Residents who wish to read the filings directly may search Missouri Case.net for Case No. 21SL-CC04285.
DOCKET UPDATE - 9/20/26
Following the Court’s May 27 Partial Judgment on liability, the parties have now submitted additional briefing addressing the remaining damages issues.
The principal dispute is no longer whether the City has been held responsible under the May 27 order, but how the alleged taking should be legally characterized and, as a result, how any recoverable damages should be calculated.
The City notes that the Court previously stated that “the amount of damages” is the remaining issue for trial and that plaintiffs may recover only actual damages supported by evidence.
August 21 — City responds to Supplemental Pre-Trial Order
The City filed a response arguing that the case involves a permanent, partial taking under Missouri inverse-condemnation law. According to the City, replacing the failed sewer pipe would not end the public drainage use across Lot 31 because storm water would continue to travel through the replacement system. The City argues that compensation should be based on the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before and immediately after the taking, rather than by adding together repair costs, sewer-replacement costs and landscaping or arboretum-restoration costs.
The City further argues that the plaintiffs have not presented the type of before-and-after property valuation evidence that the City believes this measure requires. It therefore asks the Court to rule that, absent competent evidence establishing a loss in fair-market value, the plaintiffs would be entitled at most to nominal damages. This is the City’s legal position; the Court has not yet adopted that conclusion.
The City also agrees that prejudgment interest may be available in an inverse-condemnation case at six percent per year, but disputes the plaintiffs’ proposed method for calculating when that interest begins to accrue. Under the City’s permanent-taking theory, it argues that interest should run on whatever compensation is ultimately proven from a single legally established “date of taking,” rather than separately from the dates on which individual expenses were incurred.
On attorney fees, the City asks the Court to rule that there is no legal basis for an award in this case. The filing notes that the plaintiffs previously stated that they did not intend to seek attorney fees as an element of damages, although a request for fees remains in their Third Amended Petition.
September 2 — Plaintiffs oppose the City’s damages position.
The plaintiffs filed a memorandum disputing the City’s characterization of the taking. They argue that the relevant source of the injury is the broken storm water sewer pipe itself, not the continuing movement of public storm water through the property. Because the broken pipe can be replaced, the plaintiffs characterize the condition as a temporary nuisance and temporary taking.
The plaintiffs contend that a temporary-taking analysis permits recovery of the cost of repair and restoration, rather than limiting damages to a before-and-after change in the fair-market value of Lot 31. Their filing identifies three general categories of claimed damages: past out-of-pocket costs for repairing or replacing damaged horticultural and hardscape features; the cost of removing and replacing the storm water sewer pipe; and the cost of restoring horticultural and hardscape features affected by the future sewer work.
The plaintiffs continue to identify $415,000 as the proposed cost of replacing the sewer. The September 2 filing also corrects two figures associated with future arboretum restoration: figures previously stated as $191,522 and $436,391 are identified in a footnote as $201,099 and $523,669, respectively, based on the June 30 supporting materials.
The plaintiffs also dispute the City’s contention that they lack valuation evidence. Their filing states that the plaintiffs submitted a deposition errata sheet giving. The plaintiffs nevertheless maintain that fair-market-value diminution is not the controlling measure because, in their view, this is a temporary rather than permanent taking. Their memorandum concludes that the appropriate measure is the cost necessary to restore the property to its pre-taking condition.
September 8 — Plaintiffs Amend September 2 Filing
The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental memorandum specifically correcting an error in their September 2 filing concerning the Missouri Supreme Court decision Byrom v. Little Blue Valley Sewer District. In the earlier filing, plaintiffs had stated that language quoted by the City did not appear in Byrom. On September 8, they expressly acknowledged that this was an error and that the quoted language does appear in the case.
The plaintiffs nevertheless maintain that the City reads Byrom too broadly. They argue that the full context of the decision concerns the exclusion of tort-like personal-injury damages from an inverse-condemnation recovery and does not establish that every nuisance-based inverse-condemnation claim must be proved exclusively through a before-and-after fair-market-value calculation.
he case management conference and trial setting on September 22, 2026.
Residents who would like to review the official public docket directly may search Missouri Case.net for Case No. 21SL-CC04285.
DOCKET UPDATE - 8/22/26
The court docket in Bruce W. Buehrig, et al. v. City of Bellerive Acres, Case No. 21SL-CC04285, has continued to develop following the Court's May 27, 2026 Order and Partial Judgment.
The Court's July 27 order also stated that the plaintiffs had timely responded to issues raised in a supplemental pretrial order and directed the City to submit its response by August 21.
The case management conference and trial setting on September 22, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. A case management conference is generally a procedural proceeding used by the Court to determine the status of the case and establish the next steps or schedule. It should not be confused with the damages trial itself or with a final judgment.
Residents who would like to review the official public docket directly may search Missouri Case.net for Case No. 21SL-CC04285.
DOCKET UPDATE - 7/28/26
There have been multiple public docket updates in Case No. 21SL-CC04285 since the Bulletin’s last update.
On July 13, the plaintiffs filed a pretrial memorandum of law regarding damages.
On July 25, the plaintiffs filed several trial-related documents, including a proposed order, a notice of hearing, and returns of service for trial subpoenas.
On July 27, the City filed a motion to continue the pre-trial and trial setting. Later that same day, the Court entered a scheduling notice on its own motion. The Court vacated the July 29, 2026 pre-trial conference and the August 17, 2026 trial setting. The City’s motion to continue was denied as moot.
The Court’s July 27 order states that the Court had previously directed the parties to address three issues by July 15, 2026. The order states that the plaintiffs submitted a timely response on July 13, 2026, and that the docket did not reflect a response from the defendant. The City has been directed to file a response to the supplemental pre-trial order by August 21, 2026.
The case is now set for a case management conference and trial setting on September 22, 2026, at 1:30 p.m
DOCKET UPDATE - 6/30/26
On June 29, 2026 the City filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order and Partial Judgment. In the motion, the City asks the Court to eliminate or substantially reduce the sanctions entered in the May 27 order. A Notice of Hearing was also filed on June 30, 2026.
DOCKET UPDATE - 5/30/26
A public order was entered on 5/27/26 in Bruce W. Buehrig, et al. v. City of Bellerive Acres, Case No. 21SL-CC04285, pending in St. Louis County Circuit Court.
In the order, the Court granted sanctions against the City related to discovery issues in the case. The Court found that the City had repeatedly failed to fully comply with prior discovery orders. As a sanction, the Court entered partial judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability.
According to the order, the remaining issue for trial is the amount of actual damages, if any, supported by evidence. The Court specifically noted that this is not a punitive damages case and that the plaintiffs may only recover actual damages supported by evidence.
The order also requires the City to update its discovery responses within 21 days and allows the plaintiffs to conduct an additional deposition of a designated City witness. The case is currently set for a pretrial hearing on July 29, 2026 and trial on August 17, 2026.