Case Name: HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, Appellants, and John DOE and Mary Roe, Defendants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 519 S.W.3d 818
Docket Number: No. ED 104152
Parties: HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, Appellants, and John DOE and Mary Roe, Defendants.
Judges: Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 519
Pages: 818–818

Head Matter:
HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. Donald BOLIN and Kimberly Bolin, Appellants, and John DOE and Mary Roe, Defendants.
No. ED 104152
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
FILED: March 14, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 27, 2017
Application for Transfer Denied June 27, 2017
Donald Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se
Kimberly Bolin, Imperial, MO, acting Pro Se
Matthew Miguel Peters, Martin Leigh, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Donald and Kimberly Bolin ("Appellants") appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment and judgment for possession of the property ("Judgment") in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Respondent") on Respondent's action in unlawful detainer to obtain immediate possession of the property located at 5019 Meadow Drive, Imperial, MO 63052 (the "Property"). On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting its Judgment in favor of Respondent because (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Respondent was not entitled to possession of the Property because it engaged in fraud in obtaining title to the Property. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of , summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).