Brooks v. O'KELLEY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brooks v. O'KELLEY

353 S.W.3d 364, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1361, 2011 WL 4944570

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

DocketED 95982

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 364 (Brooks v. O'KELLEY) 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

Brooks v. O'KELLEY, 353 S.W.3d 364, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1361, 2011 WL 4944570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Karen Brooks (Brooks) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her action, which sought the rescission of an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of her former property. The trial court dismissed Brooks’s claim because she failed to join a mortgage lender as a necessary party, and because the equitable remedy she requested was not available under the facts alleged in her claim. Brooks filed this appeal alleging the trial court erred in denying her claim on grounds of failure to join a necessary party. Finding Brooks failed to appeal the trial court’s separate holding dismissing her claim because equity could not afford her a remedy, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Karen Brooks (Brooks) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her action, which sought the rescission of an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of her former property. The trial court dismissed Brooks’s claim because she failed to join a mortgage lender as a necessary party, and because the equitable remedy she requested was not available under the facts alleged in her claim. Brooks filed this appeal alleging the trial court erred in denying her claim on grounds of failure to join a necessary party. Finding Brooks failed to appeal the trial court’s separate holding dismissing her claim because equity could not afford her a remedy, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 364, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1361, 2011 WL 4944570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-okelley-moctapp-2011.