covenant or of any covenant enacted by the Association. Second, Mr. Westphal claims that the actions of the Association are state action because the Association is a quasi-governmental entity. He maintains that the Association “operates as a ‘mini-government’” because it raises money through dues, has an elected governing body, enacts rules and regulations, and enforces such rules through the court system. In support of this argument, Mr. Westphal relies on Chesus v. Watts, 967 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.App.1998), and Terre Du Lac Ass’n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.App.1987). In these two cases, the court held that a homeowner’s association had the right to sue a developer to enforce contracts between the developer and the association’s members. Chesus, 967 S.W.2d at 106 (<HOLDING>); Terre Du Lac, 737 S.W.2d at 213 (holding the
holding that employers have standing to sue holding the homeowners association had standing to sue under the theory of promissory estoppel holding that the plaintiff as a loss payee under a fidelity insurance policy had standing to sue the insurer directly holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that a motor carriers association has standing to sue on behalf of its members for department of transportations alleged abuses of agency authority