Carter v. THOMPSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carter v. THOMPSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

355 S.W.3d 554, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2011 WL 6989866

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

DocketWD 73500

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 355 S.W.3d 554 (Carter v. THOMPSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC) 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

Carter v. THOMPSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, 355 S.W.3d 554, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2011 WL 6989866 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Clyde and Sherry Carter appeal the judgment of the trial court in favor of Thompson Property Management, LLC and Rush Property Development Company (“Defendants”) on their claim to quiet title and Defendants’ counterclaim for rent and possession and unlawful detainer. They claim that the trial court erred in (1) failing to quiet title to them because they proved a valid real estate purchase contract, their performance of the contract, and execution and delivery of a deed by Defendants and (2) denying their motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Clyde and Sherry Carter appeal the judgment of the trial court in favor of Thompson Property Management, LLC and Rush Property Development Company (“Defendants”) on their claim to quiet title and Defendants’ counterclaim for rent and possession and unlawful detainer. They claim that the trial court erred in (1) failing to quiet title to them because they proved a valid real estate purchase contract, their performance of the contract, and execution and delivery of a deed by Defendants and (2) denying their motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 S.W.3d 554, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2011 WL 6989866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-thompson-property-management-llc-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack