Case Name: Ellen E. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. William C. PHELPS, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-11-18
Citations: 955 S.W.2d 813
Docket Number: No. 71696
Parties: Ellen E. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. William C. PHELPS, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 955
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Ellen E. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. William C. PHELPS, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 71696.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 18, 1997.
Elbert Dorsey, Law Office of Collier, Dorsey, Carter & Williams, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bryan Cave, LLP, John R. Haug, David S. Slavkin, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Ellen E. Buchanan (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. William C. Phelps (Respondent). Appellant argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because: (1) Respondent has the burden of proving due execution of the will by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) two contradictory accounts of essential facts existed regarding decedent's testamentary capacity.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Upon de novo review, we find no genuine issue of material fact or error of law. An opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of Appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied.