Pettus v. NARAL Pro-Choice Mo.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pettus v. NARAL Pro-Choice Mo.

518 S.W.3d 903, 2017 WL 2333053, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 510

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104812

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 903 (Pettus v. NARAL Pro-Choice Mo.) 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

Pettus v. NARAL Pro-Choice Mo., 518 S.W.3d 903, 2017 WL 2333053, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathalie C. Pettus (“Appellant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of her claims for lack of standing. In her petition, Appellant claimed (1) she was entitled to an accounting of her 2015 gifts to NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri (“NARAL”) and NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation (“NAR-AL Foundation”), (2) NARAL, NARAL Foundation, and Jane Bogetto (collectively “Defendants”) fraudulently induced her donation in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and (3) Defendants breached a condition subsequent placed on Appellant’s charitable donation. We find the motion court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s petition for lack of standing to bring a claim for the return of money subject to a condition subsequent. The motion court additionally did not err in dismissing Appellant’s claim for an accounting. Finally, the court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s claim for damages under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [904]*904The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathalie C. Pettus (“Appellant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of her claims for lack of standing. In her petition, Appellant claimed (1) she was entitled to an accounting of her 2015 gifts to NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri (“NARAL”) and NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation (“NAR-AL Foundation”), (2) NARAL, NARAL Foundation, and Jane Bogetto (collectively “Defendants”) fraudulently induced her donation in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and (3) Defendants breached a condition subsequent placed on Appellant’s charitable donation. We find the motion court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s petition for lack of standing to bring a claim for the return of money subject to a condition subsequent. The motion court additionally did not err in dismissing Appellant’s claim for an accounting. Finally, the court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s claim for damages under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [904]*904The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 903, 2017 WL 2333053, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettus-v-naral-pro-choice-mo-moctapp-2017.