GE Money Bank v. Ponzar

Missouri Court of Appeals

GE Money Bank v. Ponzar

413 S.W.3d 657, 2013 WL 5634573, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 15, 2013·No. No. ED 99256·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In his one point on appeal, Ponzar argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside judgment as irregular and void under Rule 74.06(b) because he did not receive notice that his case had [658] been set for trial in violation of his right to due process of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

In his one point on appeal, Ponzar argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside judgment as irregular and void under Rule 74.06(b) because he did not receive notice that his case had [658] been set for trial in violation of his right to due process of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

GE Money Bank v. Ponzar, 413 S.W.3d 657, 2013 WL 5634573, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

413 S.W.3d 657 (GE Money Bank v. Ponzar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.