DiSalvo v. Skinner

Missouri Court of Appeals

DiSalvo v. Skinner

350 S.W.3d 860, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1362, 2011 WL 4944855

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

DocketED 95999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 S.W.3d 860 (DiSalvo v. Skinner) 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

DiSalvo v. Skinner, 350 S.W.3d 860, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1362, 2011 WL 4944855 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Phyllis Rallo Skinner 1 (“Phyllis”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering the disposition of certain assets of Katherine Rallo’s (“Katherine”) estate. Phyllis contends the trial court erred as a matter of law when it held: (1) Carlo DiSalvo (“Carlo”) did not violate his fiduciary duty to Katherine when he failed to reveal the existence of the 1993 trust and to transfer the corpus of the 1993 trust to the 1999 trust, and (2) the Georgia freeze order did not prohibit Carlo’s transfer of his interest in the joint account to Anthony DiSalvo Jr. (“Anthony Jr.”) because the transfer took place before the rights of ownership of the joint account had been determined.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Many of the parties have the same last names. Thus, we will call them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Phyllis Rallo Skinner 1 (“Phyllis”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering the disposition of certain assets of Katherine Rallo’s (“Katherine”) estate. Phyllis contends the trial court erred as a matter of law when it held: (1) Carlo DiSalvo (“Carlo”) did not violate his fiduciary duty to Katherine when he failed to reveal the existence of the 1993 trust and to transfer the corpus of the 1993 trust to the 1999 trust, and (2) the Georgia freeze order did not prohibit Carlo’s transfer of his interest in the joint account to Anthony DiSalvo Jr. (“Anthony Jr.”) because the transfer took place before the rights of ownership of the joint account had been determined.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Many of the parties have the same last names. Thus, we will call them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.3d 860, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1362, 2011 WL 4944855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disalvo-v-skinner-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack