Collins v. Nester

Missouri Court of Appeals

Collins v. Nester

497 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 839, 2016 WL 4525309

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103766

StatusPublished

This text of 497 S.W.3d 355 (Collins v. Nester) 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

Collins v. Nester, 497 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 839, 2016 WL 4525309 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Derek Collins (“Intervenor”) appeals from the probate court’s denial of his motion to intervene in the probate proceedings of Harvey Foster’s estate. The motion requested intervention to protect Interve-nor’s financial interest under a newly dis[356]*356covered will (the “Will”)) which had not previously been admitted to probate, and which was presented to the Court more than one year after decedent’s death. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Derek Collins (“Intervenor”) appeals from the probate court’s denial of his motion to intervene in the probate proceedings of Harvey Foster’s estate. The motion requested intervention to protect Interve-nor’s financial interest under a newly dis[356]*356covered will (the “Will”)) which had not previously been admitted to probate, and which was presented to the Court more than one year after decedent’s death. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 839, 2016 WL 4525309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-nester-moctapp-2016.