Case Name: Michael W. WALKER and Verna Walker, Appellant-Respondents, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORP., 2004-GEL1, Respondent-Appellant; Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and CSMA BLT, LLC., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-01-08
Citations: 570 S.W.3d 588
Docket Number: WD 81527 Consol. With: WD 81563
Parties: Michael W. WALKER and Verna Walker, Appellant-Respondents,
v.
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORP., 2004-GEL1, Respondent-Appellant;
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
Michael W. WALKER and Verna Walker, Appellant-Respondents,
v.
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORP., 2004-GEL1, Respondent-Appellant;
Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and CSMA BLT, LLC., Respondents
WD 81527 Consol. With: WD 81563
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2019
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019
Jeffery T. Adams, Clinton, MO, Counsel for Appellant-Respondents.
James C. Morrow, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondents.
Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge
ORDER

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Michael and Verna Walker, plaintiffs below, appeal judgments entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2004-GEL1 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and CSMA BLT, LLC ("CSMA"). U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorneys' fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and most of the same legal issues as those presented and decided in Wesley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. WD81408 569 S.W.3d 436, 2018 WL 5913113 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 13, 2018). The analysis and result of that case controls the disposition of this one. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided a memorandum. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).