Briner v. Bank of St. Charles County

Missouri Court of Appeals

Briner v. Bank of St. Charles County

892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1995 WL 57855

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

DocketNo. 66042

StatusPublished

This text of 892 S.W.2d 398 (Briner v. Bank of St. Charles County) 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

Briner v. Bank of St. Charles County, 892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1995 WL 57855 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in favor of note holder on notes. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential valué. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Further, because plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with appellate procedure, presents an issue on appeal that was not raised in the court below, and is wholly without merit, we find plaintiffs appeal frivolous and assess damages against plaintiff and in favor of defendant in the amount of $1,000.00. Rule 84.19; Snelling v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 859 S.W.2d 755 (Mo.App.1993).

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment in favor of note holder on notes. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential valué. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Further, because plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with appellate procedure, presents an issue on appeal that was not raised in the court below, and is wholly without merit, we find plaintiffs appeal frivolous and assess damages against plaintiff and in favor of defendant in the amount of $1,000.00. Rule 84.19; Snelling v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 859 S.W.2d 755 (Mo.App.1993).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1995 WL 57855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briner-v-bank-of-st-charles-county-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack