Evans v. Childers

Missouri Court of Appeals

Evans v. Childers

544 S.W.3d 324

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2018

DocketWD 80786

StatusPublished

This text of 544 S.W.3d 324 (Evans v. Childers) 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 S.W.3d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-childers-moctapp-2018.