McClintock v. McClintock

383 S.W.3d 64, 2012 WL 5207602, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1337
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 23, 2012·No. No. ED 97503·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gregory G. Fenlon (Fenlon) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to enforce an attorney’s lien against Wayne McClin-tock, Jr. (McClintock).

In his sole point on appeal, Fenlon alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to enforce an attorney’s lien in a partition case initiated by McClintock where Fenlon filed no counterclaim on behalf of his client. Fenlon contends that his entry of appearance and counterclaim filed in a difference case constitute sufficient notice to satisfy Section 484.130. We find no error and affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

McClintock v. McClintock, 383 S.W.3d 64, 2012 WL 5207602, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1337 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

383 S.W.3d 64 (McClintock v. McClintock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.