Essen v. Allan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Essen v. Allan

500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2016 WL 5889000

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103674

StatusPublished

This text of 500 S.W.3d 908 (Essen v. Allan) 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

Essen v. Allan, 500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2016 WL 5889000 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Carl Essen (“Client”) appealed from the judgment partitioning several acres of land, which he held with his two sisters. The appeal was dismissed because the trial court’s judgment was not final in that the sale proceeds had not been' distributed. Following the dismissal, Client terminated his initial counsel and retained John Allan and STL Professional Law Company (“Attorney”) to investigate possible legal malpractice by former counsel and to continue his appeal of the partition. During the second appeal from the partition judgment, Client again terminated his counsel and hired a third set of attorneys to finish the appeal, in which the judgment was ultimately affirmed. Client later filed a petition against Attorney for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking damages from the second appeal. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Attorney finding that Client failed to provide expert testimony establishing Attorney breached the standard of care and was the proximate cause of Client’s damages. 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

Carl Essen (“Client”) appealed from the judgment partitioning several acres of land, which he held with his two sisters. The appeal was dismissed because the trial court’s judgment was not final in that the sale proceeds had not been' distributed. Following the dismissal, Client terminated his initial counsel and retained John Allan and STL Professional Law Company (“Attorney”) to investigate possible legal malpractice by former counsel and to continue his appeal of the partition. During the second appeal from the partition judgment, Client again terminated his counsel and hired a third set of attorneys to finish the appeal, in which the judgment was ultimately affirmed. Client later filed a petition against Attorney for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking damages from the second appeal. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Attorney finding that Client failed to provide expert testimony establishing Attorney breached the standard of care and was the proximate cause of Client’s damages. 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)

500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2016 WL 5889000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essen-v-allan-moctapp-2016.