Case Name: Nathalie PETTUS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NARAL PRO-CHOICE MO., et al., Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 518 S.W.3d 903
Docket Number: No. ED 104812
Parties: Nathalie PETTUS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NARAL PRO-CHOICE MO., et al., Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 518
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
Nathalie PETTUS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. NARAL PRO-CHOICE MO., et al., Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 104812
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 30, 2017
Hugh A. Eastwood, 7911 Forsyth Blvd. Ste. 300, Clayton, MO 63105, For Plain-tiffAppellant.
Garry Seltzer, Kevin L. Seltzer, 7751 Carondelet Ave. Ste. 708, Clayton, MO 63105, For Defendants/Respondents.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Nathalie C. Pettus ("Appellant") appeals the motion court's denial of her claims for lack of standing. In her petition, Appellant claimed (1) she was entitled to an accounting of her 2015 gifts to NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri ("NARAL") and NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation ("NAR-AL Foundation"), (2) NARAL, NARAL Foundation, and Jane Bogetto (collectively "Defendants") fraudulently induced her donation in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and (3) Defendants breached a condition subsequent placed on Appellant's charitable donation. We find the motion court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition for lack of standing to bring a claim for the return of money subject to a condition subsequent. The motion court additionally did not err in dismissing Appellant's claim for an accounting. Finally, the court did not err in dismissing Appellant's claim for damages under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).