City of Kinloch v. Conway

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Kinloch v. Conway

522 S.W.3d 913, 2017 WL 3027089, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 701

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 18, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104790

StatusPublished

This text of 522 S.W.3d 913 (City of Kinloch v. Conway) 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

City of Kinloch v. Conway, 522 S.W.3d 913, 2017 WL 3027089, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

City of Kinloch ( the City) appeals the order and judgment of the trial court finding against it on its request to set aside conveyances of real, property owned by Appellant to Betty McCray, Kena Buford, and Derek Conway (together with Keith Conway, “Defendants”). Appellant alleges these three conveyances were;made in violation of § 432.070 and other Missouri statutes and therefore void. We affirm the judgment of the trial court finding the court did not erroneously declare or apply the law in holding that the deeds should not be . set aside under § 432.070 or § 105.452. The court was not asked to make findings of fact and we presume all factual issues were resolved in accordance with the result reached. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

City of Kinloch ( the City) appeals the order and judgment of the trial court finding against it on its request to set aside conveyances of real, property owned by Appellant to Betty McCray, Kena Buford, and Derek Conway (together with Keith Conway, “Defendants”). Appellant alleges these three conveyances were;made in violation of § 432.070 and other Missouri statutes and therefore void. We affirm the judgment of the trial court finding the court did not erroneously declare or apply the law in holding that the deeds should not be . set aside under § 432.070 or § 105.452. The court was not asked to make findings of fact and we presume all factual issues were resolved in accordance with the result reached. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 S.W.3d 913, 2017 WL 3027089, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kinloch-v-conway-moctapp-2017.