Pennington-Thurman v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pennington-Thurman v. Bank of Am., N.A.

556 S.W.3d 68

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 22, 2018·No. No. ED 105981·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*69Wilma Pennington-Thurman ("Appellant"), acting pro se, appeals the judgment denying her motion to reopen two actions for fraud and wrongful foreclosure, both of which were finally decided in 2010. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

*69Wilma Pennington-Thurman ("Appellant"), acting pro se, appeals the judgment denying her motion to reopen two actions for fraud and wrongful foreclosure, both of which were finally decided in 2010. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Pennington-Thurman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 556 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

556 S.W.3d 68 (Pennington-Thurman v. Bank of Am., N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related