Flagstar Bank v. GHAFOORI

Missouri Court of Appeals

Flagstar Bank v. GHAFOORI

272 S.W.3d 392, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1581, 2008 WL 4710791

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketED 90924

StatusPublished

This text of 272 S.W.3d 392 (Flagstar Bank v. GHAFOORI) 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

Flagstar Bank v. GHAFOORI, 272 S.W.3d 392, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1581, 2008 WL 4710791 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theresa Ghafoori (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Order and Judgment granting Flagstar Bank’s (Respondent) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Appellant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and quieting title for certain property in favor of Respondent. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theresa Ghafoori (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Order and Judgment granting Flagstar Bank’s (Respondent) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Appellant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and quieting title for certain property in favor of Respondent. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.W.3d 392, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1581, 2008 WL 4710791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagstar-bank-v-ghafoori-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack