Case ID: sw3d_107/html/0352-02.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

Willie CARTER, Appellant, and Wardell Carter, Plaintiff, v. M&M AGENCY, INC., Respondent.
    No. ED 81581.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    March 25, 2003.
    Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 27, 2003.
    Application for Transfer Denied July 1, 2003.
    Thomas Carter II, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Jeffrey K. Suess, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Carter (hereinafter, “Father”) and Wardell Carter (hereinafter, “Son”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting M&M Agency, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “M&M”) motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted M&M’s motion with respect to Father’s claim for conversion of his repossessed Corvette, and Son voluntarily dismissed his claim for alleged damages to his property as a result of the repossession. Father argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in M&M’s favor because his claim was not barred by res judicata.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to Father’s claim for conversion because it was barred by res judicata. Lomax v. Sewell, 50 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).