Walker v. U.S. Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. U.S. Bank

570 S.W.3d 588

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 2019

DocketWD 81527 Consol. With: WD 81563

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 588 (Walker v. U.S. Bank) 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

Walker v. U.S. Bank, 570 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Michael and Verna Walker, plaintiffs below, appeal judgments entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2004-GEL1 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and CSMA BLT, LLC ("CSMA"). U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorneys' fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and most of the same legal issues as those presented and decided in Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. WD81408 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018). The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

Michael and Verna Walker, plaintiffs below, appeal judgments entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2004-GEL1 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and CSMA BLT, LLC ("CSMA"). U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorneys' fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and most of the same legal issues as those presented and decided in Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. WD81408 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018). The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-us-bank-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack