Case Name: Deidra S. COX, Appellant-Respondent, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISE FIRST BOSTON HEAT 2004-3, Respondent-Appellant, and Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and Jessica Westoff, Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-11-13
Citations: 570 S.W.3d 76
Docket Number: WD 81470; (C/w WD 81489)
Parties: Deidra S. COX, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISE FIRST BOSTON HEAT 2004-3, Respondent-Appellant,
and
Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and Jessica Westoff, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 570
Pages: 76–76

Head Matter:
Deidra S. COX, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISE FIRST BOSTON HEAT 2004-3, Respondent-Appellant,
and
Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., and Jessica Westoff, Respondents.
WD 81470
(C/w WD 81489)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Order filed: NOVEMBER 13, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 18, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied April 2, 2019
Jeffery T. Adams, Clinton, for Appellant-Respondent.
Derik C. Albers, St. Louis, for Respondent-Appellant U.S. Bank.
James C. Morrow, Kansas City, for Respondent Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C.
Shawn T. Briner, Chesterfield, for Respondent Jessica Westhoff.
Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Deidra Cox appeals the amended judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suise First Boston Heat 2004-3 ("U.S. Bank"), Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M"), and Jessica Westhoff. U.S. Bank cross-appeals the denial of its request for attorney's fees. This appeal involves the validity of a real estate foreclosure sale. It involves similar facts and 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), handed down concurrently herewith. 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).