U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Air Pip, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Air Pip, Inc.

220 S.W.3d 333, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 227, 2007 WL 446943

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

DocketED 88020

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W.3d 333 (U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Air Pip, Inc.) 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

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Air Pip, Inc., 220 S.W.3d 333, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 227, 2007 WL 446943 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Air Pip, Inc. (Air Pip), Scottie Pippen, and Larsa Pippen (Air Pip and the Pip-pens hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) in U.S. Bank’s action asserting claims against Air Pip on a promissory note and for breach of contract, and against the Pippens on personal guaranties, and from its dismissal of Defendants’ third-party claims. 1

*334 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude, upon de novo review, that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 871, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. U.S. Bank’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is granted. Because the trial court is better equipped to hear evidence and argument on this issue, we remand and instruct the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and ex *334 penses requested on appeal. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. See Hutch-ings ex rel. Hutchings v. Roling, 193 S.W.3d 334, 353 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Air Pip, Inc. (Air Pip), Scottie Pippen, and Larsa Pippen (Air Pip and the Pip-pens hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) in U.S. Bank’s action asserting claims against Air Pip on a promissory note and for breach of contract, and against the Pippens on personal guaranties, and from its dismissal of Defendants’ third-party claims. 1

*334 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude, upon de novo review, that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 871, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. U.S. Bank’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is granted. Because the trial court is better equipped to hear evidence and argument on this issue, we remand and instruct the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and ex *334 penses requested on appeal. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. See Hutch-ings ex rel. Hutchings v. Roling, 193 S.W.3d 334, 353 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W.3d 333, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 227, 2007 WL 446943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-bank-national-assn-v-air-pip-inc-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack