Health Care Marketing Assocs., Inc. v. Managed Care Professionals, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Health Care Marketing Assocs., Inc. v. Managed Care Professionals, Inc.

139 S.W.3d 591, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 659, 2004 WL 943438

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 4, 2004

DocketED 82959

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.3d 591 (Health Care Marketing Assocs., Inc. v. Managed Care Professionals, Inc.) 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

Health Care Marketing Assocs., Inc. v. Managed Care Professionals, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 591, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 659, 2004 WL 943438 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*592 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Managed Care Professionals, Inc. (“MCP”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Health Care Marketing Associates, Inc. (“HMA”) on HMA’s breach of contract claim and MCP’s breach of contract counterclaim. MCP argues the trial court erred in awarding HMA $2,136,408.15, plus post-judgment interest and costs, because: (1) the agreement between MCP and HMA unambiguously provided that it expired on February 9, 2000 and the finder-representative distinction was inapplicable such that HMA was not entitled to post-expiration commissions; and (2) HMA’s breach of contract was material as it constituted a repudiation of HMA’s remaining obligations under the agreement.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*592 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Managed Care Professionals, Inc. (“MCP”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Health Care Marketing Associates, Inc. (“HMA”) on HMA’s breach of contract claim and MCP’s breach of contract counterclaim. MCP argues the trial court erred in awarding HMA $2,136,408.15, plus post-judgment interest and costs, because: (1) the agreement between MCP and HMA unambiguously provided that it expired on February 9, 2000 and the finder-representative distinction was inapplicable such that HMA was not entitled to post-expiration commissions; and (2) HMA’s breach of contract was material as it constituted a repudiation of HMA’s remaining obligations under the agreement.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.3d 591, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 659, 2004 WL 943438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/health-care-marketing-assocs-inc-v-managed-care-professionals-inc-moctapp-2004.