Case ID: sw3d_546/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The BUSINESS BANK OF SAINT LOUIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BROWN & JAMES, P.C., Defendant/Respondent.
    ED 105566
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    Filed: February 13, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018
    John L. Davidson, P.O. Box 31506, St. Louis, MO 63131, For Plaintiff/Appellant.
    John L. Gianoulakis, Robert F. Murray, 1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 800, Clayton, MO 63105, For Defendant/Appellant.
    Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM.

The Business Bank of Saint Louis (Appellant) appeals from the March 27, 2017 Final Judgment of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of Brown & James, P.C. (Respondent) on Counts I and II of Appellant's Second Amended Petition and dismissing Count III for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts I and II, ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993) ; and Count III failed to state a claim. Philips v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 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 decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).