Chivetta v. Chivetta

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chivetta v. Chivetta

38 S.W.3d 477, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2001 WL 205988

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78265

StatusPublished

This text of 38 S.W.3d 477 (Chivetta v. Chivetta) 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

Chivetta v. Chivetta, 38 S.W.3d 477, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2001 WL 205988 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to set aside default judgment and awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The decision to set aside a default judgment lies within the trial court’s discretion, and its decision will not be overturned unless [478]*478the record indicates an abuse of that discretion. Engine Masters, Inc. v. Kirn’s, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to set aside default judgment and awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The decision to set aside a default judgment lies within the trial court’s discretion, and its decision will not be overturned unless [478]*478the record indicates an abuse of that discretion. Engine Masters, Inc. v. Kirn’s, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.W.3d 477, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2001 WL 205988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chivetta-v-chivetta-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack