Case Name: Deanthony THOMAS and Susan Jelinek-Thomas, et al., individually and as representatives of the U.S. Bank Direct Loans Settlement Class, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ND and U.S. Bank National Association, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-10-13
Citations: 472 S.W.3d 616
Docket Number: WD 78192
Parties: Deanthony THOMAS and Susan Jelinek-Thomas, et al., individually and as representatives of the U.S. Bank Direct Loans Settlement Class, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ND and U.S. Bank National Association, Respondents.
Judges: Before Division II: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, and Victor C. Howard and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judges
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Deanthony THOMAS and Susan Jelinek-Thomas, et al., individually and as representatives of the U.S. Bank Direct Loans Settlement Class, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ND and U.S. Bank National Association, Respondents.
WD 78192
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
ORDER FILED: October 13, 2015
Kip D. Richards, R. Frederick Walters, J. Michael Vaughan, and David M. Skeens, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellants.
Mark A. Olthoff, Kansas City, MO, Paul R. Dieseth, Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Respondents.
Before Division II: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, and Victor C. Howard and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judges

Opinion:
Order
Per Curiam:.
Appellants Deanthony Thomas and similarly situated fellow class members who obtained second .mortgages on Missouri real property that, were acquired and/or serviced by Respondents appeal from the rulings of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying the Appellants' motion to enforce settlement agreement and judgment relating to the defined term "Active Loan" (which was • incorporated into the terms of the judgment), denying the Appellants' alternative motion to partially vacate the underlying judgment, and denying certain unnamed plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Because a published opinion would have no jurisprudential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties explaining our ruling. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).