Sutton v. Yarbrough

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sutton v. Yarbrough

894 S.W.2d 179, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 143, 1995 WL 34239

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 31, 1995·No. No. 65177·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Marjorie Sutton, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anna Schmedt (“Decedent”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Respondents James and Mary Yarbrough on their petition for specific performance of a debt adjustment agreement. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Appellant Marjorie Sutton, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anna Schmedt (“Decedent”), appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Respondents James and Mary Yarbrough on their petition for specific performance of a debt adjustment agreement. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sutton v. Yarbrough, 894 S.W.2d 179, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 143, 1995 WL 34239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

894 S.W.2d 179 (Sutton v. Yarbrough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.