Cox v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cox v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n

570 S.W.3d 76

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 2018

DocketWD 81470; (C/w WD 81489)

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 76 (Cox v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n) 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

Cox v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 570 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Deidra Cox appeals the amended judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suise First Boston Heat 2004-3 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and Jessica Westhoff. U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorney's fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and the same legal issues as those presented and decided in Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. WD81408, 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018), handed down concurrently herewith. The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Deidra Cox appeals the amended judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suise First Boston Heat 2004-3 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and Jessica Westhoff. U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorney's fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and the same legal issues as those presented and decided in Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. WD81408, 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018), handed down concurrently herewith. The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-us-bank-natl-assn-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack