IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT SCOTT HUBER and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table of Contents Table of Cases <strong>and</strong> Authorities…………………………………………………………. 3 Jurisdictional Statement………………………………………………………................ 4 Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………. 6 Points Relied On…..…………………………………………………………. ………… 9 Argument……………………………………………………………………………….. 11 I………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 II…………………………………………………………………………………. 23 III………………………………………………………………………………… 25 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 26 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………. 29 Certificate of Counsel <strong>and</strong> Service……………………………………………………… 28 2
Cases: Table of Authorities Berndsen v. Flagstar Bank, 193 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).…........................ 13 Digman v. McCollum, 47 Mo. 372, 1871 WL 7647 (Mo. 1871).……………………. 15 Garr v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 137 S.W.3d 457 (Mo. banc 2004)...13, 16, 18, 22 Glass v. First Nat. Bank of St. Louis 191 S.W.3d 662 (Mo. banc 2006) ………….. 17-18 Huber v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2007 WL 656289 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)… 4 Husch & Eppenberger, LLC v. Eisenberg, 213 S.W.3d 124 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) …… 18 ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993).……………………………………………………………………. 11-12 Knutson v. Christeson, 684 S.W.2d 549 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984)……………………… 15 Ringstreet Northcrest, Inc. v. Bisanz, 950 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)………. 23 Roberts v. Rider, 924 S.W.2d 555 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996)……………………………... 13 State ex inf. Dalton v. Miles Laboratories, Inc., 282 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. banc 1955) .. 18 Constitutional Authority / Statutes: MO. CONST., ART. V, § 10 …………………………………………………………….. 5 MO. REV. STAT. § 443.060 (2000) …………………………………………………….. 13 MO. REV. STAT. § 443.130 (2000) ……………………………… 4, 7, 13-16, 19, 21, 23 MO. REV. STAT. § 443.130 (Supp. 2004) ………………………………………… 20, 21 Other: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7 th Ed. 1999) …………………………………………. 14 3
Page 1: IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT _____
Page 5 and 6: This appeal falls within the jurisd
Page 7 and 8: Appellants. L.F. 93. On April 23, 2
Page 9 and 10: Points Relied On I. The Trial Court
Page 11 and 12: Argument I. The Trial Court did not
Page 13 and 14: The Penalty Statute is the enforcem
Page 15 and 16: no longer subject to a mortgage. To
Page 17 and 18: Court’s attention away from the f
Page 19 and 20: the enforcement mechanism of the Pe
Page 21 and 22: obligations under the Penalty Statu
Page 23 and 24: II. The Circuit Court did not err i
Page 25 and 26: III. The Circuit Court did not err
Page 27 and 28: 27 Respectfully submitted, HAZELWOO
Page 29 and 30: Appendix 29

IN THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT SCOTT HUBER and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?