Case ID: sw3d_528/html/0441-01.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

CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C., Appellant, v. Julie PESTKA and Brian Lee Harvell, Respondent.
    No. ED 104803
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: August 1, 2017
    Rehearing Denied September 25, 2017
    Brittany M. Brown, Co-Counsel, Chesterfield, for appellant.
    Leigh J. Carson, Clayton, for respondent.
    Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cordell & Cordell, P.C., (“Cordell”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Julie M. Pestka (“Ms. Pestka”) and her attorney Brian L. Harvell (“Mr. Harvell”) on Cordell’s claims for malicious prosecution. On appeal, Cor-dell argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there remained genuine issues of material fact concerning three issues: whether Ms. Pestka and Mr. Harvell lacked probable cause for the prior civil claims against Cordell; whether Ms. Pestka and Mr. Har-vell acted with malice in pursuing the claims; and whether Ms. Pestka established the affirmative defense of advice of counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).