Weaver v. Kirchner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Weaver v. Kirchner

578 S.W.3d 821

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106954

StatusPublished

This text of 578 S.W.3d 821 (Weaver v. Kirchner) 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

Weaver v. Kirchner, 578 S.W.3d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*822Mark and Linda Weaver ("the Weavers") appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Camdyn Properties, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams West for Negligence (Count III) and Civil Conspiracy (Count IV) on the Weavers' petition for breach of a statutory duty of real estate licensee, acting as a buyer's agent, to disclose "adverse material facts" regarding a buyer's ability to perform under the terms of a real estate contract. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

*822Mark and Linda Weaver ("the Weavers") appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Camdyn Properties, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams West for Negligence (Count III) and Civil Conspiracy (Count IV) on the Weavers' petition for breach of a statutory duty of real estate licensee, acting as a buyer's agent, to disclose "adverse material facts" regarding a buyer's ability to perform under the terms of a real estate contract. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 S.W.3d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-kirchner-moctapp-2019.