Beaver v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Missouri Court of Appeals

Beaver v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

472 S.W.3d 615, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1042, 2015 WL 5933972

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 2015

DocketWD 78193

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 615 (Beaver v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n) 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

Beaver v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 472 S.W.3d 615, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1042, 2015 WL 5933972 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

Appellants Jack L. Beaver and similarly situated fellow class members who obtained second mortgages on Missouri real property that were acquired and/or serviced by Respondents appeal from the rulings of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying the Appellants’ motion to enforce settlement agreement and judgment relating to the defined term “Active Loan”' (which - was incorporated into the 'terms of the judgment), denying the Appellants’' alternative motion to partially vacate the underlying judgment, and denying certain unnamed plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. Because a published opinion would have no jurisprudential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

Appellants Jack L. Beaver and similarly situated fellow class members who obtained second mortgages on Missouri real property that were acquired and/or serviced by Respondents appeal from the rulings of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying the Appellants’ motion to enforce settlement agreement and judgment relating to the defined term “Active Loan”' (which - was incorporated into the 'terms of the judgment), denying the Appellants’' alternative motion to partially vacate the underlying judgment, and denying certain unnamed plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. Because a published opinion would have no jurisprudential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.3d 615, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1042, 2015 WL 5933972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaver-v-us-bank-national-assn-moctapp-2015.