In re the Estate of Palumbo

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re the Estate of Palumbo

497 S.W.3d 282, 2016 WL 2994564, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 522

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103688

StatusPublished

This text of 497 S.W.3d 282 (In re the Estate of Palumbo) 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 the Estate of Palumbo, 497 S.W.3d 282, 2016 WL 2994564, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jennifer Keith (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (the probate division) denying her claims against the Estate of Jake Andrew Palum-bo (the Estate). In four points on appeal, Appellant argues that the probate division erred by concluding that a provision of the marital settlement agreement of Appellant and Jake Palumbo (Decedent) was invalid and unenforceable. Appellant also contends that the probate division erred by concluding that the Estate was not required, under the marital settlement agreement, to indemnify Appellant for her legal fees. The Estate filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its counterclaim for attorney’s fees. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential 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

Jennifer Keith (Appellant) appeals the judgment of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (the probate division) denying her claims against the Estate of Jake Andrew Palum-bo (the Estate). In four points on appeal, Appellant argues that the probate division erred by concluding that a provision of the marital settlement agreement of Appellant and Jake Palumbo (Decedent) was invalid and unenforceable. Appellant also contends that the probate division erred by concluding that the Estate was not required, under the marital settlement agreement, to indemnify Appellant for her legal fees. The Estate filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its counterclaim for attorney’s fees. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.3d 282, 2016 WL 2994564, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-palumbo-moctapp-2016.