Bittner v. ESTATE OF BITTNER

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bittner v. ESTATE OF BITTNER

224 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2007 WL 897219

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

DocketED 87969

StatusPublished

This text of 224 S.W.3d 106 (Bittner v. ESTATE OF BITTNER) 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

Bittner v. ESTATE OF BITTNER, 224 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2007 WL 897219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marilyn Bittner (“Widow”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying her claim against the estate of her late husband, John Bittner (“Decedent”), for transfer in fraud of marital rights. She claims two main points on appeal. First, Widow claims that the trial court erred in finding in favor of the Estate on her claim for transfer in fraud of marital rights because she proved all the elements of fraud. Second, Widow contends that the trial court erred in failing to award her monies from the transfers in fraud because the harm was calculable in equity.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marilyn Bittner (“Widow”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying her claim against the estate of her late husband, John Bittner (“Decedent”), for transfer in fraud of marital rights. She claims two main points on appeal. First, Widow claims that the trial court erred in finding in favor of the Estate on her claim for transfer in fraud of marital rights because she proved all the elements of fraud. Second, Widow contends that the trial court erred in failing to award her monies from the transfers in fraud because the harm was calculable in equity.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W.3d 106, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2007 WL 897219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bittner-v-estate-of-bittner-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack