Case Name: CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C., Appellant, v. Julie PESTKA and Brian Lee Harvell, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-08-01
Citations: 528 S.W.3d 441
Docket Number: No. ED 104803
Parties: CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C., Appellant, v. Julie PESTKA and Brian Lee Harvell, Respondent.
Judges: Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 528
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
CORDELL & CORDELL, P.C., Appellant, v. Julie PESTKA and Brian Lee Harvell, Respondent.
No. ED 104803
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: August 1, 2017
Rehearing Denied September 25, 2017
Brittany M. Brown, Co-Counsel, Chesterfield, for appellant.
Leigh J. Carson, Clayton, for respondent.
Before Angela T. Quigless, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Cordell & Cordell, P.C., ("Cordell") appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Julie M. Pestka ("Ms. Pestka") and her attorney Brian L. Harvell ("Mr. Harvell") on Cordell's claims for malicious prosecution. On appeal, Cor-dell argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there remained genuine issues of material fact concerning three issues: whether Ms. Pestka and Mr. Harvell lacked probable cause for the prior civil claims against Cordell; whether Ms. Pestka and Mr. Har-vell acted with malice in pursuing the claims; and whether Ms. Pestka established the affirmative defense of advice of counsel.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion 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.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).