In re Temm

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re Temm

507 S.W.3d 66, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2016 WL 6212052

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103493

StatusPublished

This text of 507 S.W.3d 66 (In re Temm) 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

In re Temm, 507 S.W.3d 66, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2016 WL 6212052 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Ronald Garms (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s August 6, 2015 amended judgment on Appellant’s action for declaratory judgment. The trial court’s amended judgment declared the existence of the Alice Logan Temm Inter Vivos Trust of July 25, 2014, (“Trust”), named Barbara Stribling (“Stribling”) as sole beneficiary, and found Appellant was not its intended Trustee, but was to assist in the creation of the Trust. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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

Ronald Garms (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s August 6, 2015 amended judgment on Appellant’s action for declaratory judgment. The trial court’s amended judgment declared the existence of the Alice Logan Temm Inter Vivos Trust of July 25, 2014, (“Trust”), named Barbara Stribling (“Stribling”) as sole beneficiary, and found Appellant was not its intended Trustee, but was to assist in the creation of the Trust. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 S.W.3d 66, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2016 WL 6212052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-temm-moctapp-2016.