Case Name: MIDWEST BANKCENTRE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Harold L. McCOY, Defendant, and RM Supply, Inc., Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-01-08
Citations: 395 S.W.3d 556
Docket Number: No. ED 98755
Parties: MIDWEST BANKCENTRE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Harold L. McCOY, Defendant, and RM Supply, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J„ and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 395
Pages: 556–556

Head Matter:
MIDWEST BANKCENTRE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Harold L. McCOY, Defendant, and RM Supply, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 98755.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Jan. 8, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 21, 2013.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 2013.
Thomas Berndsen, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Keith Price, Andrew Kasnetz, co-counsel, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J„ and LISA VAN AMBURG, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
RM Supply, Inc. ("RM Supply") appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Midwest BankCentre ("Midwest"). RM Supply contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Midwest and in denying RM Supply's cross-motion for summary judgment because Midwest does not have standing to enforce the subordination clause, the doctrine of equitable subrogation does not apply, Midwest cannot invoke the status of a third-party beneficiary, and Midwest was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a written memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).