In the Interest of Turner

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of Turner

119 S.W.3d 581, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1768, 2003 WL 22479476

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 4, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81371

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.W.3d 581 (In the Interest of Turner) 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 the Interest of Turner, 119 S.W.3d 581, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1768, 2003 WL 22479476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Janet Shanklin (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her petition seeking guardianship of her mother, Juanita Turner, and from the award of sanctions in favor of Appellant’s sister, Corliss Bonner (hereinafter, “Respondent”). Appellant claims the trial court erred in imposing sanctions and attorney fees in that there was insufficient evidence to establish her petition was filed frivolously. Appellant also argues she did nothing to protract this litigation, but rather, the litigation ensued because Respondent sought a restraining order against her.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in [582]*582the trial court’s imposition of sanctions. Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). Respondent’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. 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.

Janet Shanklin (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her petition seeking guardianship of her mother, Juanita Turner, and from the award of sanctions in favor of Appellant’s sister, Corliss Bonner (hereinafter, “Respondent”). Appellant claims the trial court erred in imposing sanctions and attorney fees in that there was insufficient evidence to establish her petition was filed frivolously. Appellant also argues she did nothing to protract this litigation, but rather, the litigation ensued because Respondent sought a restraining order against her.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in [582]*582the trial court’s imposition of sanctions. Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). Respondent’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.W.3d 581, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1768, 2003 WL 22479476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-turner-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack