Estate of Austin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Estate of Austin

488 S.W.3d 727, 2016 WL 1757528, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 436

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103183

StatusPublished

This text of 488 S.W.3d 727 (Estate of Austin) 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

Estate of Austin, 488 S.W.3d 727, 2016 WL 1757528, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 436 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Clyde Austin, Sr. (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment finding that a quit claim deed conveying property from Lois Mae Austin to Ralph Banks (“Respondent”) was valid and enforceable. Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the deed because the trial court erroneously applied the law by failing to give effect to a presumption that the deed was obtained by undue influence and that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and ré-stating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Clyde Austin, Sr. (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment finding that a quit claim deed conveying property from Lois Mae Austin to Ralph Banks (“Respondent”) was valid and enforceable. Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the deed because the trial court erroneously applied the law by failing to give effect to a presumption that the deed was obtained by undue influence and that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and ré-stating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 S.W.3d 727, 2016 WL 1757528, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-austin-moctapp-2016.