Case ID: sw3d_571/html/0164-01.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

MODERN MOTORS, LLC, Respondent, v. Terry L. GERBER, Donald W. Gessley and Cathy Gerber, Appellants.
    WD 80732
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    Filed: January 22, 2019 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied April 30, 2019
    Dennis R. Rowland, Kansas City, for appellants.
    Charles E. Weedman, Jr., Harrisonville, for respondent.
    Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., and Victor C. Howard and Alok Ahuja, JJ.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants Terry Gerber, Cathy Gerber, and Donald Gessley appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County following a bench trial. The circuit court granted judgment to Respondent Modern Motors, LLC against Terry Gerber and Gessley on Modern Motors' claim for enforcement of a promissory note. The judgment awarded Modern Motors $107,025.40 in unpaid principal, interest and late fees, and $16,053.87 in attorney's fees. The circuit court also denied Gessley's counterclaim seeking to exercise a state-law right of redemption to an airplane which had been pledged as collateral for the promissory note, and denied Cathy Gerber's motion to intervene in the action to assert a claim for replevin of the airplane.

Appellants raise six points on appeal. They argue that the circuit court erroneously admitted the promissory note and an assignment agreement into evidence; that the judgment was unsupported by sufficient evidence (assuming that the note and assignment were erroneously admitted); that Modern Motors' retention of the security for the note (the airplane) had the effect of extinguishing the debt; that the circuit court erroneously rejected Gessley's attempt to enforce his redemption rights to the airplane; that the court erroneously denied Cathy Gerber's motion to intervene; and that the court erroneously calculated Modern Motors' recoverable attorneys' fees.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).