Vanita M. Casey Trust v. Casey

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vanita M. Casey Trust v. Casey

508 S.W.3d 180, 2016 WL 7438734, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1342

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2016

DocketWD 79396

StatusPublished

This text of 508 S.W.3d 180 (Vanita M. Casey Trust v. Casey) 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

Vanita M. Casey Trust v. Casey, 508 S.W.3d 180, 2016 WL 7438734, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1342 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellants Mark Casey, Sean Casey, and Christopher Casey (collectively, the “Caseys”) appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri ejecting them from the premises located at 5608 Phelps Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64136 (“Trust Property”). The Caseys allege that the circuit court erred in ejecting them because the court did not have proper jurisdiction to hear the case, the Caseys did not receive proper written notice of termination of their tenancy, and an un[181]*181lawful detainer action could not be brought against the Caseys because of their uninterrupted occupation of the Trust Property. We affirm. A 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:

Appellants Mark Casey, Sean Casey, and Christopher Casey (collectively, the “Caseys”) appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri ejecting them from the premises located at 5608 Phelps Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64136 (“Trust Property”). The Caseys allege that the circuit court erred in ejecting them because the court did not have proper jurisdiction to hear the case, the Caseys did not receive proper written notice of termination of their tenancy, and an un[181]*181lawful detainer action could not be brought against the Caseys because of their uninterrupted occupation of the Trust Property. We affirm. A 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)

508 S.W.3d 180, 2016 WL 7438734, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanita-m-casey-trust-v-casey-moctapp-2016.