Ponzar v. Elliott

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ponzar v. Elliott

491 S.W.3d 679, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2016 WL 3269722

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2016

DocketNo. ED103241

StatusPublished

This text of 491 S.W.3d 679 (Ponzar v. Elliott) 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

Ponzar v. Elliott, 491 S.W.3d 679, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2016 WL 3269722 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kurt and Sandra Ponzar (the “Ponzars”) appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents Deborah Lynn Elliott (“Elliott”) and Investors Title Company, Inc. (“Investors”), on Counts II, III and IV of the Ponzars’ amended petition. Specifically, in their first point, the Ponzars contend the trial court erred in designating its judgment as a final appealable judgment. [680]*680In their remaining points, the Ponzars argue the trial court erred in dismissing Counts II, III and IV of them amended petition because: 1) the Ponzars’ claims were not barred as compulsory counterclaims; 2) the counterclaim rule was not applicable as the Ponzars’ claims had not accrued; and 3) the claims against Elliott were not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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.

Kurt and Sandra Ponzar (the “Ponzars”) appeal the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents Deborah Lynn Elliott (“Elliott”) and Investors Title Company, Inc. (“Investors”), on Counts II, III and IV of the Ponzars’ amended petition. Specifically, in their first point, the Ponzars contend the trial court erred in designating its judgment as a final appealable judgment. [680]*680In their remaining points, the Ponzars argue the trial court erred in dismissing Counts II, III and IV of them amended petition because: 1) the Ponzars’ claims were not barred as compulsory counterclaims; 2) the counterclaim rule was not applicable as the Ponzars’ claims had not accrued; and 3) the claims against Elliott were not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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)

491 S.W.3d 679, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2016 WL 3269722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponzar-v-elliott-moctapp-2016.