Swinney v. Nicholson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Swinney v. Nicholson

474 S.W.3d 606, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2015 WL 7252362

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2015

DocketWD 78209

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 606 (Swinney v. Nicholson) 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

Swinney v. Nicholson, 474 S.W.3d 606, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2015 WL 7252362 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Swinney brought suit against James Nicholson, Brook Robinson, and Gary Brown for breach of a residential lease. Following a bench trial the Circuit Court of Platte County entered judgment for Swinney for unpaid rent and property damage, and found Nicholson, Robinson, and Brown to be jointly and severally liable. Nicholson appeals, arguing that Swinney failed to prove the claim asserted in her petition, and that the evidence did not establish an enforceable contract, because it failed to demonstrate a meeting of the minds between Swinney, Nicholson, Robinson and Brown. We affirm. In addition, we grant Swinney’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal, and remand to the circuit court for a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees to which Swin-ney is entitled. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Swinney brought suit against James Nicholson, Brook Robinson, and Gary Brown for breach of a residential lease. Following a bench trial the Circuit Court of Platte County entered judgment for Swinney for unpaid rent and property damage, and found Nicholson, Robinson, and Brown to be jointly and severally liable. Nicholson appeals, arguing that Swinney failed to prove the claim asserted in her petition, and that the evidence did not establish an enforceable contract, because it failed to demonstrate a meeting of the minds between Swinney, Nicholson, Robinson and Brown. We affirm. In addition, we grant Swinney’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal, and remand to the circuit court for a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees to which Swin-ney is entitled. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 606, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2015 WL 7252362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swinney-v-nicholson-moctapp-2015.