HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bolin

Missouri Court of Appeals

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bolin

519 S.W.3d 818, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2017 WL 971841

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104152

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 519 S.W.3d 818 (HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bolin) 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

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Bolin, 519 S.W.3d 818, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2017 WL 971841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Donald and Kimberly Bolin (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment for possession of the property (“Judgment”) in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Respondent”) on Respondent’s action in unlawful detainer to obtain immediate possession of the property located at 5019 Meadow Drive, Imperial, MO 63052 (the “Property”). On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting its Judgment in favor of Respondent because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Respondent was not entitled to possession of the Property because it engaged in fraud in obtaining title to the Property. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of , summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only 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

Donald and Kimberly Bolin (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and judgment for possession of the property (“Judgment”) in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Respondent”) on Respondent’s action in unlawful detainer to obtain immediate possession of the property located at 5019 Meadow Drive, Imperial, MO 63052 (the “Property”). On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting its Judgment in favor of Respondent because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Respondent was not entitled to possession of the Property because it engaged in fraud in obtaining title to the Property. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of , summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 S.W.3d 818, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, 2017 WL 971841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsbc-mortgage-services-inc-v-bolin-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack