Evans v. Childers

Missouri Court of Appeals

Evans v. Childers

544 S.W.3d 324

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 10, 2018·No. WD 80786·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Portico Properties, LLC, John Otten, and Russell Childers (collectively Defendants) appeal the summary judgment in favor of Randall Evans and Joyce Franklin (collectively Plaintiffs) on Plaintiff's petition on note and guaranty. Defendants contend that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against them on the promissory note because genuine issues of material fact existed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. 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:

Portico Properties, LLC, John Otten, and Russell Childers (collectively Defendants) appeal the summary judgment in favor of Randall Evans and Joyce Franklin (collectively Plaintiffs) on Plaintiff's petition on note and guaranty. Defendants contend that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against them on the promissory note because genuine issues of material fact existed. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Evans v. Childers, 544 S.W.3d 324 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

544 S.W.3d 324 (Evans v. Childers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.