Andes v. Dickey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Andes v. Dickey

574 S.W.3d 766

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2019

DocketWD 81296

StatusPublished

This text of 574 S.W.3d 766 (Andes v. Dickey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andes v. Dickey, 574 S.W.3d 766 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Andes sued her daughter, Ann Dickey, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, claiming that Andes held sole title to a home that she and Dickey had jointly purchased. The circuit court awarded full title to Andes. We reversed the trial court's judgment. Andes v. Dickey , 527 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). While the case was pending on appeal, however, Andes sold the home to an innocent third-party. On remand, the circuit court entered judgment for Dickey on Andes' claim, but awarded Dickey no other relief. Dickey appeals, arguing that she is entitled to compensation for her interest in the property, which Andes sold under an erroneous circuit court judgment. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Andes sued her daughter, Ann Dickey, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, claiming that Andes held sole title to a home that she and Dickey had jointly purchased. The circuit court awarded full title to Andes. We reversed the trial court's judgment. Andes v. Dickey , 527 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). While the case was pending on appeal, however, Andes sold the home to an innocent third-party. On remand, the circuit court entered judgment for Dickey on Andes' claim, but awarded Dickey no other relief. Dickey appeals, arguing that she is entitled to compensation for her interest in the property, which Andes sold under an erroneous circuit court judgment. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 S.W.3d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andes-v-dickey-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack