Pulaski Financial Corp. v. Pollak

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pulaski Financial Corp. v. Pollak

493 S.W.3d 865, 2016 WL 2894858

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103134

StatusPublished

This text of 493 S.W.3d 865 (Pulaski Financial Corp. v. Pollak) 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

Pulaski Financial Corp. v. Pollak, 493 S.W.3d 865, 2016 WL 2894858 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Helen Poliak (“Poliak”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entering summary judgment in favor of Pulaski Bank (“Pulaski”) for balances due on three promissory notes. On appeal, Poliak claims that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed. Because Poliak did not raise a genuine issue of material fact, and because Pulaski was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in granting Pulaski’s motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only,- setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Helen Poliak (“Poliak”) appeals the trial court’s judgment entering summary judgment in favor of Pulaski Bank (“Pulaski”) for balances due on three promissory notes. On appeal, Poliak claims that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed. Because Poliak did not raise a genuine issue of material fact, and because Pulaski was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in granting Pulaski’s motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only,- setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 S.W.3d 865, 2016 WL 2894858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulaski-financial-corp-v-pollak-moctapp-2016.